invoices_submit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the status change to 'sent_to_provider' and the asynchronous validation behavior with polling suggestions. It could note side effects more richly but covers the key behavioral trait well.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. States action, precondition, state transition, and follow-up in economical prose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers the essential behavioral facts: status requirement, status transition, and asynchronous outcome. Could mention failure/validation error paths, but is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 baseline is 3. Both parameters (uuid, companyId) are documented in the schema. The description adds the companyId override semantics implicitly via the broader tool context but doesn't add explicit parameter-level guidance beyond schema.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Submit an issued invoice to the ANAF e-Factura system.' It clearly scopes to submission of invoices, distinguishes from siblings like einvoice_submit and invoices_issue by naming the target system and prerequisite status.

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?

States the required precondition ('must be in issued status') and explicitly directs the user to poll invoices_get or invoices_events for validation results. It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., when NOT to use), but the required-status hint provides clear context.

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