Export E-Invoice XML

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that signed XML for Facturae requires a workspace signing certificate and returns a signed download URL valid for 24 hours, which are important behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with key information in English, followed by Spanish translation. While slightly longer due to bilingual content, every sentence adds value and no information is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not cover return values. It adequately covers purpose, format selection, signed behavior, and URL expiration. Minor gap: does not mention potential error conditions or prerequisites beyond cert for signed Facturae.

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%, but the description adds significant value: it explains how to choose format based on recipient country, clarifies that signed only applies to Facturae, and mentions certificate configuration requirement. This goes beyond the schema's enum and type info.

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 exports an invoice as e-invoicing XML, lists supported formats, and specifies the signed option. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_einvoice and validate_einvoice_xml by focusing on generating the XML file.

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?

Provides per-country format guidance (e.g., ES->facturae, DE->xrechnung-cii/ubl) and explains the signed parameter's use case. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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