einvoice-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool extracts data but doesn't describe what happens if the XML is invalid, what structured data is returned (e.g., fields like invoice number, date), or any performance or error-handling traits. This is inadequate for a tool that processes XML input without output schema details.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first in both German and English. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but doesn't significantly detract from efficiency. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (processing XML for data extraction), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what structured data is extracted, how errors are handled, or the format of the output, leaving critical gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and results.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('xml' as a string and 'base64' as a Base64-encoded XML file). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are alternative input methods for e-invoice XML, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Extracts structured data from an e-invoice XML.' It specifies the verb ('extracts'), resource ('structured data'), and source format ('e-invoice XML'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_invoice' or 'convert_format'. The bilingual phrasing adds clarity but doesn't enhance 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the input formats (UBL-XML or CII-XML) but doesn't specify scenarios where extraction is needed over validation or conversion, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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