Invoices_getInvoicesExport

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

Without annotations, the description does useful work by saying the call is a read-style 'Returns' operation and by adding the deployment boundary ('Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here') and the conditional presence of exportDocumentId. It stops short of disclosing authentication, error behavior, or full response details.

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?

Three short sentences, with the main action stated plainly and no repeated schema information. 'Catalog entry' is slightly opaque, but the description is compact and readable.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to explain how to identify the export and what the response contains; it provides only one field and an empty parameter contract. The relationship to Invoices_createInvoicesExport and Invoices_getInvoicesExports is also absent.

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 zero declared properties, so the baseline credit applies, and the description adds the concept of 'the export that you specify.' However, it never names the parameter or its format, which is especially confusing when the formal schema is empty and the tool claims a target must be specified.

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 identifies the action ('Returns invoice export details') and the target ('the export that you specify'), and it calls out the key exportDocumentId field. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like getInvoicesExports, so it lacks full differentiation.

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 phrase 'for the export that you specify' implies a retrieval-after-selection workflow, and the deployment warning says it executes in Kuudo, not locally. It does not state when to prefer this over Invoices_getInvoicesExports or how to obtain the export identifier, so guidance is mostly implicit.

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