einvoice-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool creates a valid XRechnung XML, implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, validation steps, or output format details. This is inadequate for a complex tool with 15 parameters.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in one bilingual sentence. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating key points.

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 15 parameters, nested objects, and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, and output expectations, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between fields or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 creates an XRechnung XML from structured data, specifying the format (UBL 2.1) and standards (EN 16931 + XRechnung 3.0.2). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_zugferd' by focusing on XRechnung, though it doesn't explicitly compare them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_zugferd' or 'convert_format'. The description mentions conformance to specific standards, which implies usage for XRechnung-compliant invoices, but lacks clear when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites.

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