normalize_fiscal_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds that the tool is read-only and uses existing wrappers, but does not disclose behavior like error handling, idempotency details, or whether the document is cached/modified. Overall, adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, no wasted words, and directly states the core function. It is appropriately concise for a tool with annotations, though it could include parameter hints without becoming verbose.

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 4 parameters (2 required), no schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description lacks essential context. It fails to explain parameter semantics, handling of optional fields, or what the output JSON shape looks like. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from the description alone.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameter meanings to compensate. It does not mention any parameters (documentId, direction, documentType, confirm_read) at all. The agent receives no guidance on what these mean or how to set them, making the tool hard to invoke 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 verb 'normalize' and the resource 'Aruba fiscal document' into a 'stable JSON shape'. It distinguishes the tool as a normalization step, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like parse_invoice_xml or get_invoice_by_id, which have overlapping 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 notes it is read-only and uses existing download wrappers, giving some context for when to use it. However, it does not specify when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., parse_invoice_xml) nor mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent with limited guidance.

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