delivery_notes_validate_etransport

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: three distinct validation layers (entity, XSD, Schematron) and that the response carries both errors and warnings. It doesn't say whether validation has side effects or cost/latency, but the added detail is substantial.

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?

Three short sentences with zero redundancy: what it validates, what it checks, what it returns, then when to use it. The purpose and the routing advice come first, so an agent can act after the first two sentences.

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 no output schema, the description correctly characterizes the return value as a validation result with errors and warnings. Read-only annotations cover the safety profile. The only minor gap is that it doesn't hint at the shape of the errors/warnings or a pass/fail flag, but the description is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both uuid and companyId are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about the uuid or the override behavior of companyId beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (delivery note) plus the exact standard applied (Romania's e-Transport schema). A reader immediately knows it is a pre-submission check, not an issuance or submission action, which separates it from delivery_notes_submit_etransport and the other delivery_notes_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before submit_etransport to catch issues early', naming the alternative and the sequencing condition. It does not state a when-not case (e.g. already-validated notes or drafts that cannot be validated), so it stops short of full alternatives coverage.

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