es__generate_ticketbai_xml

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

Discloses key behaviors: auto-selection of provincial XSD, signature generation, and hash chaining. No annotations provided, but the description covers the tool's main processing steps. It stops short of stating side effects or permissions.

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, front-loaded sentences with no redundant words. Critical information (province auto-selection and XSD version details) is placed prominently.

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?

For a generation tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it produces and the auto-selection logic. It lacks return value details but this is acceptable for a tool that likely outputs XML content.

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?

The description adds value beyond the input schema by explaining the automatic XSD selection, which clarifies the province parameter. Schema coverage is high (83%+), so baseline is met and elevated by this extra context.

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 TicketBAI XML invoice with XAdES-EPES signature and HuellaTBAI chain, and auto-selects the provincial XSD. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_facturae_xml or generate_b2b_einvoice_es.

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?

Implied usage for Spanish regional e-invoicing, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., generate_verifactu_record, submit_ticketbai). The note about non-interchangeable XSDs is helpful but not sufficient for usage decisions.

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