Get Invoice DIAN Errors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific purpose (getting DIAN errors) but does not elaborate on any other behavioral aspects like required permissions or output details. It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. No extraneous words or repetition; every word is necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and usage context. It lacks details about the error structure but is sufficient for selecting and using the tool correctly in most scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'id' is described as 'Invoice ID' in the schema. The description does not add further semantics beyond indicating the invoice is the one that failed stamping. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the description adds marginal value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves DIAN rejection errors for invoices that failed electronic stamping. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('DIAN rejection errors'), and the context distinguishes it from other sibling 'get' tools that focus on different entities (e.g., invoices, customers).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when an invoice fails electronic stamping ('for an invoice that failed electronic stamping'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for handling successful stamps or other error types.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.