einvoice_config_test

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

Annotations only say openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false; the description adds the substantive behavior — actual outbound authentication against each provider's API (ZRE/Chorus Pro OAuth2, SDI cert validation, KSeF session init) — which explains failure modes. It does not say whether a failed test has side effects (e.g. session creation on KSeF), a minor gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, then the supported provider matrix, then the exclusion. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing routing information.

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 should say what a test yields; it implies a pass/fail authentication result but not the error detail returned. For a dry-run validation tool with annotated external behavior this is nearly complete, with only the response shape left implicit.

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 the config parameter already enumerates the exact per-provider credential keys, so the schema carries most of the load. The description adds only the auth mechanism behind each variant (OAuth2 vs cert validation vs session init), which helps interpret errors but does not extend the parameter contract itself; baseline 3 fits.

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 (test/validate) and a specific resource (e-invoice provider credentials) and immediately separates itself from the save path with 'before saving'. The per-provider list makes it unmistakable versus siblings like einvoice_config_save, einvoice_config_list, storage_config_test and mailer_config_test.

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?

'before saving' gives clear context for when to invoke it rather than just persisting config, and the ANAF sentence is an explicit exclusion that redirects the agent to a separate OAuth flow. It stops short of naming the save sibling outright, but the usage condition is unambiguous.

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