Export DATEV

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

The description adds transparency by stating that a signed download URL valid for 24 hours is returned, and mentions output encoding (CP1252) and date format constraints. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description aligns without contradiction.

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 the main purpose but contains redundant Spanish text and a note about a stub response, which adds unnecessary length. Could be more concise.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, formats, encoding, and date constraints. It lacks error handling or limitation details but is sufficiently complete for an export tool.

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 describes all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the three EXTF formats with usage hints (e.g., 'most common, use for P&L/tax') and clarifying the date format.

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 accounting data in DATEV EXTF format for import into specific systems. It distinguishes from sibling export tools like einvoice_export or payroll_export by specifying the format and listing supported EXTF types.

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 implies usage for DATEV accounting exports but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like einvoice_export or payroll_export. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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