es__generate_b2b_einvoice_es

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds regulatory context and notes that the ministerial order is pending, which is a useful caveat, but it does not disclose what side effects generation has, whether validation occurs, what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded with the essential purpose and formats. The subsequent legal/regulatory sentences add relevant context but are somewhat tangential to invoking the tool correctly; still, they do not make the description bloated.

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 tool is moderately simple: two parameters, one required nested object, and an output schema exists. However, the description does not explain the expected invoice structure or how to select the format in practice, and it leaves the pending legal status unresolved without clarifying impact on usage.

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 adds useful mapping between the format parameter values and UBL 2.1/Facturae 3.2.2, but it still leaves the 'invoice' object opaque and does not explain what fields are expected despite additionalProperties allowing anything.

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 a specific verb ('Genera'), a clear resource ('factura B2B conforme a EN 16931'), and the two supported output formats ('UBL 2.1 o Facturae 3.2.2'). This clearly differentiates it from unrelated sibling tools like SII or Verifactu, though it does not explicitly contrast with overlapping tools like generate_facturae_xml.

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 references the Spanish 'Crea y Crece' law and the published RD 238/2026, implying this is for Spanish B2B e-invoicing, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as generate_facturae_xml or validate_facturae_schema. It also gives no guidance on choosing between 'ubl' and 'facturae'.

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