aruba_vat_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if XML is unparseable, return format), so it adds minimal value beyond 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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and fails to present key information prominently. It earns its place but is too terse for the tool's complexity.

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 6 parameters and no descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. Even though an output schema exists, the lack of parameter guidance and usage context makes it incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, the description must explain parameter semantics but does not. It omits any mention of 'direction', 'date_from', 'date_to', 'group_by', 'limit', or 'confirm_read', leaving the agent with no understanding of how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 summarizes VAT totals from invoice XML, which is a specific resource and action. Among many sibling tools focused on invoices, it distinguishes itself by targeting VAT totals specifically, though it could be more precise about whether it requires already parsed XML.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aruba_tax_breakdown_report or aruba_summarize_invoice. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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