invoices_efactura_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the message is delivered by ANAF to the seller under the invoice's upload index, that the invoice itself is not changed, and that a valid token is required. It could also mention the response or acknowledgment behavior, but the side effects and constraints are well explained.

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 dense but efficient: three sentences front-load the action and use cases, then add delivery mechanics, prerequisites, and constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisites, character limit, delivery path, and non-mutating behavior. It is adequate for invoking the tool correctly, though it could briefly state what the response contains.

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%, so the schema already documents uuid, message, and companyId. The description adds meaning by linking uuid to a received invoice with an ANAF upload index, specifying that the message is plain-text Romanian, and reinforcing the 4000-character limit, which goes beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Send a message to the issuer of a RECEIVED e-Factura through SPV (ANAF 'RASP')". It also lists concrete intents (dispute, ask for corrected, say it is not yours), which distinguishes it from sibling read-oriented tools like efactura_messages_list and efactura_messages_get.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: messaging an issuer about a received invoice, with explicit use cases and prerequisites (received invoice with ANAF upload index, valid e-Factura token). It lacks an explicit "use X instead" routing or when-not-to-use statement, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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