validate_xrechnung

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses the return format (JSON with valid, format, errors, warnings) and implies read-only behavior. It does not mention any side effects or permissions, but for a validation tool, this is moderately transparent.

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 very concise (two lines for Args and Returns) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

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 tool validates a specific standard (XRechnung), the description lacks context about compliance rules, version support, or typical use cases. The return structure is partially explained, but without an output schema, more details would help.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only says 'xml: XRechnung XML content', adding minimal value over the schema's type string. No format, encoding, or example is given.

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 'Validate XRechnung XML for compliance', which is a specific verb (validate) and resource (XRechnung XML for compliance). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'parse_xrechnung' and 'detect_xrechnung' by focusing on compliance validation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'detect_xrechnung' or 'parse_xrechnung'. It lacks context on prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or when not to use it.

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