Export E-Invoice XML

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds important behavioral details: returns a signed download URL valid for 24 hours, and for Facturae signed=true returns XAdES-enveloped XML. This adds value 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 concise, with each sentence earning its place. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Export an invoice as e-invoicing XML'), followed by a structured list of formats, country mapping, and optional details. The bilingual format adds completeness without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, many enum options, country-specific behavior), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, format selection, signed parameter details, prerequisites, and output structure (URL with 24h validity). It leaves no critical gaps for a correct agent invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters. The description enriches parameter meaning by explaining the XAdES signing for Facturae and certificate requirement for signed=true. This provides practical context that the schema alone does not convey.

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 in a specific format, listing many supported formats. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_invoice_pdf and get_invoice_einvoice by its focus on e-invoice XML generation, making the purpose very specific and actionable.

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 provides explicit guidance on which format to use based on country, mentions the signed parameter specifically for Facturae for FACe/AEAT submission, and notes the prerequisite of a workspace signing certificate for signed output. This goes beyond basic usage and helps the agent make correct choices.

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