invoice_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions future PDF support but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or limitations beyond the stated generation. The behavioral transparency is adequate but could be richer.

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 two sentences long, no redundant words, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 (multiple profiles, syntaxes, nested object, future features), the description covers the key aspects. However, it lacks details about the invoice object schema and does not mention output format specifics beyond the enum. It is mostly complete but has small gaps.

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 low (25%), but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the purpose of profiles, the XRechnung requirement for profile and syntax, and the planned PDF/A-3 output. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail, though the invoice object parameter is not elaborated.

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 generates ZUGFeRD 2.x or XRechnung 3.x invoices in XML (CII or UBL) format, with specific profiles enumerated. It distinguishes from sibling tools like invoice_parse and invoice_convert by focusing on creation.

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 specifies when to use the tool (generate invoices) and gives context on profile selection (e.g., set profile to XRECHNUNG for XRechnung). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling set provides implicit alternatives.

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