Send E-Invoice

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, aligning with the dispatch action. The description reveals key behavior: returns immediately with a workflowRunId, async nature requiring polling, and honest 'unavailable' response. This adds value beyond the minimal annotation.

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 well-structured with bullet points for formats and modes, making it scannable. The bilingual text adds length but serves dual-language users. The first sentence is clear and action-oriented. Minor redundancy in the Spanish section but overall efficient.

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?

Covers async behavior, format mapping, dispatch mode constraints, and error handling. An output schema exists but is not shown; the description does not explain return values, but the emphasis is on the workflowRunId. Given the tool's complexity (3 required params, many enums), the description is sufficiently complete.

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 context for format enums (e.g., which format for which country) and dispatch modes (e.g., 'chorus_pro=French portal'). This helps the agent choose appropriate values, going beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Dispatch an e-invoice') and resource ('e-invoice'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like send_invoice (sends a regular invoice) and get_einvoice_status (polls for completion). The description includes specific formats and dispatch modes, making the purpose precise.

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 guidance on when to use (dispatching e-invoices with specific formats) and mentions async polling via get_einvoice_status. It also notes the 'unavailable' response if the backend is not deployed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with send_invoice or other invoice-related tools.

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