export_invoice_pohoda

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key side effect: a file is written next to the existing PDF, in windows-1250, validated against XSD. It omits failure behavior, overwrite semantics, and whether exporting twice is idempotent — material gaps for a file-producing write operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the action, the artifact, the encoding, the validation guarantee, and the file location with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, for an export that mutates the filesystem, the definition leaves out preconditions and repeat-run behavior that an agent would need to call it confidently.

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%, and the schema itself explains that 'number' is the invoice number from the records and that 'eu_classification' is the Pohoda VAT code required for reverse-charge EU services. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Uloží fakturu jako Pohoda XML') plus the output format specifics (windows-1250, XSD-validated, written alongside the PDF). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling exports like export_vat_return and export_book, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g. whether the invoice must already be issued, or whether this can be run repeatedly). The agent must infer that this is the Pohoda-specific export path purely from the format named in the sentence.

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