datev_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions mapping invoice line items to DATEV booking records, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., file creation location, overwrite behavior), error states, or whether the tool is read-only (export implies write but not 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?

Three sentences, each containing essential information: purpose, output usage, and mapping behavior. No filler words. Structure is well front-loaded.

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?

The input includes a nested ZUGFeRDInvoice object without describing its required fields. The output is a CSV file, but the tool does not specify whether it returns file content, a download link, or a path. Error handling and limitations are omitted. Given no output schema, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 50% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context about the mapping process and format details, but individual parameter descriptions are minimal. The additional narrative justifies a score of 3, the baseline for moderate coverage.

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 the tool exports a ZUGFeRD invoice to DATEV CSV format (EXTF 700, Buchungsstapel). The verb 'Export' and the specific target format distinguish it from sibling tools like invoice_convert which handle general conversion.

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 implies usage when one needs a CSV file importable by DATEV Belegtransfer or Rechnungswesen. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the eight sibling tools.

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