Export E-Invoice XML

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a signed download URL valid for 24 hours, and the signed parameter requires a workspace signing certificate. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 (4 sentences in English, plus Spanish translation) and front-loaded with the key purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information without repetition.

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 presence of annotations, complete schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, format selection, signed behavior, and URL expiry. No gaps identified.

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?

The input schema already has bilingual descriptions for all parameters. The description further adds value by mapping format values to specific use cases (country and recipient), which helps the agent choose correctly.

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 'Export an invoice as e-invoicing XML in a specific format' with a specific verb and resource. It lists supported formats and differentiates from sibling tools like get_invoice_pdf, send_einvoice, and validate_einvoice_xml.

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 per country/context (e.g., ES B2G→facturae, DE→xrechnung-cii/ubl) and mentions signed=true for FACe/AEAT. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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