invoice_convert

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It prominently warns about a non-obvious side effect: downgrades may discard data, and the conversion is rejected unless allow_data_loss=True. It also notes that discarded fields appear in the output, adding useful runtime context.

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 exceptionally tight: three sentences, no filler, with the main action first and the critical caveat last. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 description covers the core behavior, supported transformations, and the important data-loss edge case. An output schema exists, so the return format need not be described. It does not explicitly clarify that xml_base64 and xml_content are alternative input sources, but their parameter names and schema descriptions make that inferable, so this is a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter; it merely restates the data-loss toggle, which the schema also documents. No extra semantic value is contributed for xml_base64, xml_content, target_syntax, or target_profile.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Convert a ZUGFeRD or XRechnung invoice to a different profile or syntax.' It enumerates the supported transformations (profile upgrades/downgrades, ZUGFeRD <-> XRechnung, CII <-> UBL), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like invoice_validate, invoice_parse, or invoice_create.

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 states the exact scenarios this tool applies to: profile conversion and syntax transformation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give exclusion criteria, but the supported conversion matrix makes the intended use clear. The data-loss warning also guides when to set allow_data_loss=True.

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