create_zugferd_invoice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the API call, output saving, and that docContent/document.Name are derived from the file. It does not mention authentication, side effects like overwriting, or error conditions, but it provides reasonable insight into the tool's behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and API, followed by key usage caveats and output behavior. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description covers the main workflow but has gaps: it does not explicitly state that invoice_xml_data is required for XML input, invoice_json_data for JSON, etc., nor does it describe the structure of the returned metadata. With 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations, more detail would be needed for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful relationships: it explains that source_pdf_path is used to derive docContent/document.Name for XmlWithPdf mode, and clarifies inputFormat/outputMode options. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions, earning a 4.

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 a ZUGFeRD e-invoice via a specific API endpoint, which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools (none of which mention e-invoice creation) and gives a precise scope.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: for creating ZUGFeRD e-invoices with options for input format, output mode, and conformance level. It also gives a concrete usage requirement for XmlWithPdf (provide source_pdf_path). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclude other tools, though the specialized nature makes this less critical.

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