Download Invoice XML

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe and non-mutating. Description adds the detail that the output is base64-encoded XML, which is useful but not beyond what annotations imply. No contradictions.

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 with no unnecessary words. Action and distinguishing context are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the output (base64 XML, structured Estonian e-arve). With low complexity (one parameter, clear purpose), the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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% for the single parameter 'id', with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the action (download), resource (invoice XML base64), and purpose (e-invoice exchange/archival). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool get_sale_invoice_document by noting it is the machine-readable XML versus the human-readable PDF, providing clear differentiation.

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?

Description provides clear context on when to use (when machine-readable XML is needed) and explicitly names the alternative sibling (get_sale_invoice_document) for PDF. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites, but the distinction effectively guides selection.

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