check_invoice_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a validation/check operation (non-mutating by implication) and discloses what it returns: errors, warnings, a score, and derived Peppol IDs. It does not detail error format or any operational constraints, but the core behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 focused sentences, with the primary purpose and output front-loaded, followed by a single routing hint toward check_pint_ae_fields. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 rich input schema, the description does not need to list fields, and it does not. It covers what the tool checks, what it returns, and how it relates to a sibling. Without an output schema it could have described the shape of errors/warnings in more detail, but the core information an agent needs to select and call it is present.

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 top-level invoiceData parameter has no schema description, and the tool description does not explain how to structure or provide that object. However, the schema itself defines the nested fields thoroughly, and the description does add meaning by naming the relevant aspects (parties, tax IDs, totals, breakdown, lines). This is adequate but not strongly compensatory given the low schema description coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it performs structural PINT AE/UAE e-invoicing checks and enumerates the checked areas (parties, tax IDs, totals arithmetic, tax breakdown, lines). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_pint_ae_fields by noting that the sibling covers the full 51-field matrix, so the agent can tell them apart.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: structural e-invoicing checks with errors/warnings/score. It explicitly points to check_pint_ae_fields for the full 51-field matrix, which implies this tool is for a narrower structural check. It does not state explicit when-not conditions beyond that single alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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