Create XRechnung (XML)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the transformation. It omits whether auth is required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on validation failure, and that the optional transport triggers an email send in the same call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core verb and resource lead the line. It is efficient though perhaps too terse given what it needs to convey.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, a creation tool should say what it returns (the XML string, a file handle, a URL) and how errors surface. The description says nothing about the return value or failure behavior, leaving a real gap for an agent invoking it blind.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema with references to the EN 16931 business terms and transport options. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already conveys, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (create), resource (XRechnung XML document), and input (structured invoice JSON). The format distinction from the ZUGFeRD siblings is implied by 'XRechnung' and 'XML,' but no sibling is named or contrasted.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_zugferd_invoice, create_zugferd_pdf, or validate_xrechnung_xml. The agent must infer the choice of e-invoice format and validation workflow on its own.

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