invoices_verify_signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the Pro-plan entitlement gate and the fact that a non-validated invoice is not eligible. However, it never says what a failed verification produces (error vs. a negative result field) or what the response contains, which matters for a verification tool with no output schema.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope, the specific checks performed, then the eligibility constraints. The core action is front-loaded with zero 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?

Covers purpose, checks, and preconditions, and annotations handle safety, with full schema coverage on two parameters. The one real gap is return semantics: with no output schema, the agent cannot know whether success yields a boolean, a certificate detail block, or a thrown error.

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% and both parameters (uuid, companyId) carry their own descriptions, including the 'must be ANAF-validated' constraint on uuid. The description adds no syntax, format, or override semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (verify) plus precise resource (the ANAF digital signature on a validated invoice), with the three sub-checks enumerated (certificate validity, cryptographic integrity, XML content integrity). The 'must be in validated status' precondition implicitly separates it from sibling invoices_validate, so an agent can tell what stage of the workflow this occupies.

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 two concrete preconditions: requires Pro plan and the invoice must be in 'validated' (ANAF-signed) status. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. invoices_validate to reach that state, or invoices_xml for raw XML), so there are no stated when-not-to-use exclusions, but the context is clear enough to invoke correctly.

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