ksef_prepare_invoice

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

Annotations provide no behavioral details, but the description adds key traits: it builds/validates without sending and refuses to operate until TEST readiness passes. This goes beyond annotations, though it could clarify what 'TEST readiness' entails.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is very concise, though it sacrifices parameter detail. For structure, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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?

With one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a critical behavioral constraint. However, it omits any detail about the parameter or what the output contains, leaving gaps that the output schema alone may not fill.

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 only parameter (draft_id) is not described; the schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds nothing about it. No guidance is given on its meaning, format, or how to obtain it.

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 builds and validates invoice XML without sending it, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ksef_submit_invoice (sends) and ksef_validate_invoice_draft (pure validation) by emphasizing the build step and refusal behavior.

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 should be used after creating a draft and before submission, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling list provides context but the description lacks explicit usage guidance.

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