Create Peppol / UBL Invoice

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, open-world operation, and the description adds relevant behavioral context: it generates UBL 2.1 XML, optionally submits to the Peppol network, and returns either a UBL XML string or a JSON with UUID. It also discloses the integration/prerequisites for submission. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear top-line purpose, a short explanation of Peppol, a bulleted 'Restrictions' section, a return-value note, and an 'Args' list. It is not overly verbose, though the Args section partially repeats schema information; still, each sentence earns its place.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, format, return types, integration requirements, and key restrictions. It does not describe every nested field, but the schema handles that. The missing output schema is compensated by the explicit return description.

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 highlights the key parameters 'data', 'submit_to_peppol', and 'integration' with meaningful semantics beyond the schema, such as the customer_type restriction inside 'data' and the condition for 'submit_to_peppol'. Schema coverage is 57%, and many nested fields are documented in the schema, so the description adds useful high-level guidance without repeating every detail.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate a Peppol e-invoice in UBL 2.1 format and optionally submit it to the Peppol network.' It names the format, the network, and the action, and is clearly distinct from sibling tools like pop_create_sdi_invoice or pop_create_zugferd_invoice.

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 clearly states when to use this tool (Peppol e-invoicing) and provides explicit restrictions: customer type must be 'company' or 'freelance', submission requires an active Peppol via POP integration, and the customer needs a valid Peppol participant ID. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other formats, but the context is clear enough.

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