einvoice_config_test

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool does (validates credential authentication), the specific auth mechanisms per provider (ZRE OAuth2, intermediary API/cert, session init, Chorus Pro OAuth2), and explicitly excludes ANAF with rationale. It could note that the test has no side effects (doesn't persist anything) beyond the 'before saving' framing, but the core behavioral disclosure is strong.

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 focused paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and following with provider support details. Every sentence earns its place. Slightly dense but appropriate for a tool that supports multiple provider variants.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters with full schema coverage and nested objects. The description covers provider support, auth flows, and the ANAF exclusion. As a test action (validates connectivity), return-value semantics are less critical, though it could mention whether it returns pass/fail or detailed error info. Given high schema coverage and clear provider mapping, the description is largely complete for this tool's purpose.

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% and the description adds meaning by mapping each provider to its supported credential shapes (xrechnung:{clientId,clientSecret}; sdi:{apiEndpoint,apiKey} or {certPassword}; etc.), complementing the config schema. It also adds context for the ANAF exclusion that relates to the provider enum. The companyId is implied as optional context but not detailed in the description beyond the schema.

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 tests an e-invoice provider connection with given credentials before saving, validates authentication, and enumerates the supported providers with their specific auth methods. This distinguishes it from siblings like einvoice_config_save (saving) and storage_config_test (testing storage instead of e-invoice providers).

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 explicitly states it's for testing BEFORE saving credentials, and enumerates exactly which providers are supported along with their auth flows. It also notes ANAF uses a separate OAuth flow and cannot be tested here, which provides a useful exclusion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like einvoice_submit or einvoice_providers, though the purpose is reasonably clear.

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