ksef_draft_render_xml

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by clarifying that the tool only renders XML and does not send to KSeF. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not discuss authentication requirements or output structure.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the main action, the explicit non-behavior, and the prerequisite. The key information is front-loaded and there is no redundant wording.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, output format, side-effect exclusion, and a required precondition. No output schema exists, but the description already tells the agent that the result is an XML preview in FA(3) format, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, with the single 'id' parameter already documented as a draft UUID. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema fully describes the parameter and there is only one.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Wygeneruj podgląd XML'), names the exact resource ('draftu') and format ('FA(3)'), and differentiates itself from sending to KSeF. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ksef_draft_validate, ksef_draft_get, and ksef_send_invoice.

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 explicitly states what the tool does not do ('Nie wysyła do KSeF') and names a required precondition ('Draft powinien być wcześniej zwalidowany') with the relevant sibling tool. It does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools for sending or retrieving XML, but the guidance is sufficiently clear.

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