delivery_notes_validate_etransport

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

The description explains the return includes 'validation result with errors and warnings', which discloses output shape. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (likely is, but unstated), whether validation is blocking, or what happens on failure. The errors/warnings disclosure adds moderate value but leaves the mutation-safety question open.

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 three sentences with no wasted words: purpose, what it checks, return shape, and usage timing. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Informative and efficient, though the return-format sentence could arguably merge with the purpose sentence.

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?

For a validation tool with 2 simple params and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, checks performed, return content, and usage workflow. However, no output schema means the agent can't know the exact return structure beyond 'errors and warnings', and the validation types are listed without elaboration on what they each entail. Adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented (uuid as 'UUID of the delivery note to validate' and companyId as override for default). Because the schema already describes both parameters, baseline 3 applies; the description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides.

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 validates a delivery note against Romania's e-Transport schema, listing specific validation types (entity, XSD, Schematron). It distinguishes from submit_etransport by positioning as a pre-submit check. Could be slightly stronger in noting this is a validation-only (non-submitting) operation but the specific verb+resource+scope is clear.

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 final sentence explicitly says 'Use this before submit_etransport to catch issues early', naming the sibling tool it pairs with and providing timing guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternatives, but the workflow positioning is clear and helpful.

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