generate_invoice_be

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the output format (dict with xml, customization_id, profile_id) and explains that customizationID and profileID are applied. It lacks details on side effects, but generation is inherently non-destructive.

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 concise, front-loaded with action, and broken into two clear paragraphs. Every sentence adds value, with no extraneous information.

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 complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, output, and platform compatibility. It implies validation may be needed via siblings but doesn't explicitly state prerequisites. Still sufficiently complete for an agent.

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%. The description adds meaning by explaining the profile parameter's effect on customizationID and profileID. The invoice_data parameter remains vague, but the schema references the BEInvoice schema, which is external.

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 states 'Generate a valid UBL 2.1 Belgian e-invoice XML document from structured data.' This clearly identifies the verb (generate), resource (UBL 2.1 Belgian e-invoice XML), and distinguishes from sibling validation and transformation tools.

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?

It describes the target platforms (Peppol network or Mercurius) and profiles, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings like validate_invoice_be or transform_to_ubl.

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