invoices_verify_signature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the 'validated' status requirement and Pro plan requirement. However, it doesn't describe the return value/outcome format (e.g., what a passed vs. failed verification returns), or what happens if the invoice is not yet validated.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it verifies, what checks it performs, and the usage prerequisites. Zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 is moderately complex (verification with three distinct checks), has no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, prerequisites, and the scope of verification adequately. However, it lacks detail on the verification result/return format, which matters for a verification tool where the agent needs to interpret pass/fail outcomes.

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 both uuid and companyId are already documented in the schema. The description adds the constraint that uuid 'must be ANAF-validated', which reinforces the parameter context beyond the schema's 'Invoice UUID' note. This is baseline 3 given full coverage; the description adds only marginal reinforcement.

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 tool verifies the ANAF digital signature on a validated invoice, specifying the three checks it performs: certificate validity, signature cryptographic integrity, and XML content integrity. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like invoices_validate and anaf_sync_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?

The description explicitly states prerequisites: requires Pro plan and the invoice must be in 'validated' status (ANAF-signed). This gives clear context for when the tool is applicable. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisite specification effectively guides usage versus other invoice tools.

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