einvoice_submissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds real value beyond that: it lists the providers covered and the fields returned (status, external IDs, error messages, metadata), and it discloses an important data-coverage gap for ANAF. Pagination and result limits remain unmentioned.

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 purpose, followed by returned data and the caveat. No filler. The provider list inside parentheses is slightly dense but earns its place by defining the coverage scope.

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 a read-only tool, two fully documented parameters, and no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what is returned, which providers are included, and where results may be missing. Only pagination/ordering behavior is left unspecified, which is minor here.

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 uuid and companyId documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the query is scoped to a specific invoice and adds no syntax or default detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List all e-invoice submissions for a specific invoice') plus the scope of providers covered. The ANAF caveat effectively differentiates it from the e-Factura sibling flow, so an agent can tell it apart from efactura_messages_list and einvoice_submit without opening schemas.

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?

Implied usage is clear: fetch submission history for one invoice. The ANAF note names the alternative flow and warns when results will be incomplete, which is a genuine routing hint. It stops short of a full when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement (e.g., relative to einvoice_submit or einvoice_providers).

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