Get Invoice XML

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that the output is base64-encoded XML, which is useful behavioral detail beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, size constraints, or error scenarios.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and output format. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 tool with low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and output format. It could optionally mention that the base64 string represents the XML content, but the current text is adequate for an agent to understand the result.

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% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Invoice ID'. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the electronic XML of an invoice in base64 format. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('invoice electronic XML'), and the output format distinguishes it from sibling tools like siigo_get_invoice (likely JSON) and siigo_get_invoice_pdf (PDF).

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 implies usage for obtaining XML data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as siigo_get_invoice (JSON) or siigo_get_invoice_pdf (PDF). It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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