Export E-Invoice XML

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral details: returns a signed download URL valid for 24 hours and requires a workspace signing certificate for signed=true.

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 bilingual, which adds length and redundancy. While well-structured with bold terms, it could be more concise by dropping the Spanish translation or integrating it without full 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?

With an output schema present, the description adequately covers return value (signed URL, 24h validity) and format options. It lacks details on error cases or prerequisites beyond the certificate, but is complete for most use cases.

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% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds value by explaining the signed parameter's purpose for Facturae and the format-country mapping.

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' and lists numerous supported formats, distinguishing it from siblings like 'send_einvoice' or 'get_invoice_einvoice'.

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 context for when to use specific formats (e.g., 'ES B2G→facturae, DE→xrechnung-cii/ubl') and the signed parameter for Facturae, but does not explicitly exclude cases or compare with alternatives.

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