aruba_validate_invoice_xml_structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the key behavioral trait that these are 'non-official' checks, which implies they may not be authoritative and complements the safe-read nature.

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?

A single sentence with no filler words. Every term adds value: 'Run', 'non-official', 'sanity checks', 'Base64 FatturaPA XML'.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. However, the term 'sanity checks' is vague; the description could briefly mention what kind of checks (e.g., schema compliance, required fields) to be more complete.

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?

There is only one parameter (xml_base64) with 0% schema description coverage. The description clarifies it is a Base64-encoded FatturaPA XML, which adds significant meaning beyond the schema's generic title 'Xml Base64'.

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 verb ('Run'), the resource ('Base64 FatturaPA XML'), and the nature ('non-official sanity checks'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aruba_parse_invoice_xml or aruba_extract_invoice_fields which have different purposes.

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 implies the tool is for quick, non-official structural checks, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No usage exclusions or context are provided.

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