invoices_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (returns errors/warnings), mode variations, and compliance targets (UBL Schematron, CIUS-RO). This is decent behavioral coverage, though it doesn't describe what a pass/fail result looks like structurally or whether validation modifies state.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. Front-loaded with the purpose ('Validate an invoice'), then the return type, then the mode options. Every word earns its place.

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 validation tool with a clearly specified enum parameter and good schema coverage, this is reasonably complete. It explains modes, compliance standards, and purpose. It could mention what happens on validation failure (abort vs return), but given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the essentials.

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 already documents all three parameters (mode, uuid, companyId). The description adds modest value by explaining the quick/full mode semantics and implying companyId as an override, but mostly repeats schema content. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the documentation 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 clearly states the verb (validate) and resource (invoice), plus the output type (list of errors and warnings). It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings like invoices_issue/invoices_submit by framing as a pre-issue/pre-submit check, but doesn't name a specific alternative tool for validation, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 conveys when to use it ('before issuing or submitting') and explains the two modes (quick vs full) with their trade-offs (speed vs comprehensiveness). It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling validation tools, but the placement context is reasonably clear.

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