Verify SdI Document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the validation checks performed, the requirement for a 'Basic+ plan with active SdI via POP integration and registered business,' and the fact that it does not submit. This enriches behavioral transparency beyond the 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage context, a bulleted list of checks, and requirements. The 'Args' section is somewhat redundant with the schema, slightly impacting conciseness, but the overall organization makes it easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage timing, prerequisites, and validation checks. It lacks an output schema, so a note about the return value or error reporting would be helpful, but the description gives sufficient context for a pre-submission validation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters including descriptions. The description's 'Args' section repeats the exact xml_base64 schema description without adding further meaning, and it omits the environment parameter entirely. The schema already fully defines the parameters, so the description adds no new semantic information.

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's action: 'Validate an SdI (FatturaPA) XML document for compliance before submission.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly contrasts with submission by saying 'without actually submitting it,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like pop_create_sdi_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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this tool to check if an SdI XML document passes XML syntax validation and Italian e-invoicing compliance checks — without actually submitting it.' It frames the tool as a pre-submission validation step to catch errors. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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