efactura_messages_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and a closed-world scope. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that the response includes parsed details, raw ANAF response data, and related invoice information when available.

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 efficient sentences with the core action front-loaded. Each sentence adds useful information: response contents, related invoice inclusion, and diagnostic use.

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 one-parameter, read-only detail tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough context about what is returned and why to use it. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly routing list/browse use to efactura_messages_list, but nothing critical is missing for 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single uuid parameter, so the structured input already explains the parameter fully. The description does not add syntax or selection guidance beyond saying it retrieves a 'specific e-Factura message', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details of a specific e-Factura message'. It clearly distinguishes detail retrieval from listing by saying 'specific message', though it does not explicitly name the sibling list tool as the alternative.

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?

It gives a clear use context: 'Useful for diagnosing specific invoice upload errors.' That helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate, but it does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare it with efactura_messages_list or invoices_efactura_message.

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