get_einvoicing_rules_latam

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already indicate safety. Description adds return fields and supported countries, providing useful behavioral context without contradictions.

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: first defines output and supported countries, second lists use cases. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key 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?

Covers purpose, output fields, supported countries, and use cases. With output schema present, return values are detailed. Could mention error behavior for unsupported countries, but overall complete for a lookup 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?

The sole parameter 'country_code' has identical description in both the tool description and schema (100% coverage). The description adds no new meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns e-invoicing obligations for Latin American countries, lists specific fields, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_vat_rules_latam or validate_invoice_schema_latam by focusing on electronic invoicing rules.

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?

Explicit use cases are provided (building invoice generation systems, compliance determination, automation). While alternatives are not explicitly ruled out, the context makes it clear when this tool is appropriate, and it avoids mention of when not to use.

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