einvoice_submit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral variance (ANAF vs other providers, conditional API submission based on credential configuration), which is meaningful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on success/failure, submission status polling, or rate limits for provider APIs.

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 reasonably compact, front-loading the core purpose and then enumerating providers and behavior. The provider list is slightly redundant with the schema enum but useful for the agent contextually. No extraneous content.

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 an output schema absent, no annotations, and 3 parameters fully documented. The description covers the provider matrix and the credential-dependent submission behavior, which is the key nuance. However, it doesn't explain the return format or how the agent would query submission status (e.g., via einvoice_submissions sibling), leaving a moderate gap for a stateful submission tool.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (uuid, provider with enum+country mapping, companyId with default behavior). The description adds the credential-configuration caveat that affects provider behavior, but doesn't add format/syntax details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 verb+resource (+provider). It lists all supported EU providers with country codes, which strongly differentiates from siblings like einvoice_config_*, einvoice_providers, einvoice_submissions, and invoices_submit. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 explains that ANAF uses the existing e-Factura flow while other providers generate country-specific XML and optionally submit via API if credentials are configured. This gives clear context on when/how submission works per provider, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the alternative invoices_submit tool.

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