invoice_convert

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the critical behavioral trait of data loss during profile downgrades and the require_allow_data_loss parameter. It does not cover rate limits or auth needs, but these are less critical for conversion.

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 three sentences: core action, supported transformations, and a critical warning. It is front-loaded and contains 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 the complexity of invoice conversion and no output schema, the description covers main use cases and the data loss risk. It misses mention of error handling or pre-validation, but is sufficient for the tool's scope.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining the purpose of xml_content/xml_base64 alternatives, target_profile (upgrades/downgrades), target_syntax (CII↔UBL), and allow_data_loss. It adds meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 verb 'Convert' and the specific resource 'ZUGFeRD or XRechnung invoice', distinguishing it from sibling tools like invoice_parse or invoice_validate.

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 implicitly defines when to use (conversion scenarios) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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