es__generate_b2b_einvoice_es

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a generation action (no side effects stated) but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the invoice is validated or submitted. This is adequate but not thorough for a critical business document generation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and key specifics (law, formats, pending regulation). No unnecessary words.

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 has two parameters (one nested object) and no output schema. The description does not mention return type (likely XML string) or error handling. For a generation tool, explaining the output format beyond format enum would improve completeness.

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 100% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds legal context and format options but does not elaborate on the invoice object structure. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it generates a B2B invoice conforming to EN 16931 in UBL 2.1 or Facturae 3.2.2, tying it to Spanish law. It distinguishes from siblings like generate_facturae_xml (FACTURAE only) and generate_ticketbai_xml (regional) by specifying the B2B e-invoice scope and legal reference.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generate_facturae_xml, generate_ticketbai_xml) or between the two output formats (UBL vs Facturae). No when-not or prerequisite information is given.

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