einvoice_submissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden alone. It discloses the quirk that ANAF submissions are tracked separately and may not appear here, and lists return fields (status, external IDs, error messages, metadata). It doesn't state auth requirements, pagination behavior, or any side effects, but for a read/list tool the disclosure is reasonably adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The provider examples and ANAF caveat are valuable, not filler. It could drop the provider enumeration to be tighter, but it adds substantive value.

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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It names the providers, the return fields, and flags the ANAF exception. Gaps: no mention of date-range/status filtering options or ordering, and no output schema means return format details could be more explicit. But the essential context for correct invocation is present.

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 uuid described as 'UUID of the invoice' and companyId as 'Company UUID (uses default if not specified)'. The description implicitly clarifies the uuid refers to the invoice being queried, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List all e-invoice submissions for a specific invoice') and explicitly scopes the resource by filtering to a single invoice. It distinguishes from siblings by enumerating the providers (ANAF, XRechnung, SDI, KSeF, Factur-X) and the data returned. It doesn't explicitly contrast with a sibling like einvoice_submit or anaf_sync_log, but it's clearly a read/history tool.

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 implies the tool is used to view submission history for a specific invoice, which provides clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like anaf_sync_log or efactura_messages_list, nor when NOT to use it. The ANAF caveat is helpful but is a limitation note rather than a usage directive.

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