Submit e-invoice to SPV

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details by listing possible response statuses (0=processing, 1=success, 2=errors, -1=not sent), which helps the agent understand outcomes. No contradictions with 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?

Two concise sentences cover purpose, prerequisite, and response status. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, prerequisites, and response status. It does not detail all possible error scenarios, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 descriptions for both parameters ('Invoice number.' and 'Invoice series name to submit to SPV'). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('submit'), the resource ('existing Oblio invoice to Romania's SPV'), and the context ('e-Factura'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_einvoice' (retrieval) and 'create_document' (creation) by specifying that the invoice must already exist in Oblio.

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 a clear prerequisite ('invoice must already be issued in Oblio') and mentions that it sends XML to ANAF. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, though the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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