generate_peppol_invoice

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 only states the generation of XML output but does not mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the nature of the output (e.g., whether it's saved or returned).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of the nested input object and no annotations, the description is minimal. It relies heavily on the detailed schema, which covers 100% of parameters. The description does not explain the return value or any additional behavior, but the output schema exists to cover that.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about the use case (cross-border B2B) but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 / EN 16931 UBL 2.1 XML invoice. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling generate_fa2_invoice by specifying that the latter is for domestic Polish invoicing.

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 mentions when to use (cross-border B2B invoicing via Peppol) and provides an alternative for domestic Polish invoicing (generate_fa2_invoice). However, it does not address other possible alternatives like generate_fa3_invoice.

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