generate_peppol_invoice

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it generates an XML invoice but does not disclose side effects, output format details, prerequisites, or error behavior. Adequate but minimal for a complex 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 standard and format, then usage guidance. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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 description specifies the output (XML invoice) but does not mention prerequisites like Peppol participant IDs. Given the complex nested parameter and presence of an output schema (from context), it covers most essential information but lacks some setup context.

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% with rich nested descriptions for the single 'invoice' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Description explicitly states 'Generate a Peppol BIS Billing 3.0 / EN 16931 UBL 2.1 XML invoice' for cross-border B2B invoicing via Peppol, distinguishing it from sibling 'generate_fa2_invoice' 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?

Clearly states when to use (cross-border B2B invoicing via Peppol) and explicitly names an alternative (generate_fa2_invoice for domestic Polish invoicing) with 'use...instead'.

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