es__generate_facturae_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must supply behavioral details. It states the generated document is unsigned, which is critical. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like validation requirements, side effects, or output format.

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 concise sentences front-load the key action and specs. Every sentence adds value: the first specifies the standard and target, the second warns about signing requirements.

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 a nested object parameter and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and unsigned nature but does not describe the return value (e.g., whether it returns the XML string or a file). This is a gap for agent invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema field descriptions; it simply references the invoice object without elaborating on its 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 tool generates a Facturae XML for B2G submission to FACe, specifying the exact schema version (3.2.2). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like es__sign_facturae_xades by noting the output is unsigned.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool (for B2G Facturae generation) and what subsequent action to take (signing with es__sign_facturae_xades). It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context of siblings implies other tools are for different scenarios.

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