es__generate_facturae_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the generated document is unsigned and intended for FACe, but it does not mention side effects, validation behavior, or whether any network/auth involvement occurs.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The first states purpose and scope; the second adds the essential signing caveat. No wasted 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?

Given the complex input schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers the key missing context: the generated XML is unsigned and should be signed next. It does not explicitly mention submission to FACe or schema validation, but those are represented as sibling tools.

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 rich parameter descriptions already carry the semantic load. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable under the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 concrete resource ('factura XML conforme a Facturae 3.2.2'), and a clear scope ('para envío B2G al portal FACe'). It also differentiates from the signing sibling by explicitly noting the document 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 gives clear context: use this tool to generate an unsigned Facturae XML for B2G/FACe, then use es__sign_facturae_xades. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it versus validate/submit tools, but the core alternative is named.

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