clients_export_saga_xml

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information by stating the return shape (an XML document as text), which matters since there is no output schema; it does not discuss response size or pagination for large client sets.

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 short sentences: what it produces first, then what it returns. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 zero-required-param read-only export, the description covers purpose, target system and return type, and the schema covers the only parameter. The lack of any note about output volume for large client lists is the only real gap.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage explaining the companyId override and the active-company default. The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable at full coverage, earning the baseline 3.

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?

Names the exact resource (clients), the output format (Saga XML) and the downstream consumer (Saga accounting software). This distinguishes it cleanly from clients_export_csv and from the invoices/suppliers Saga exports.

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 implies usage by naming the Saga import use case, but it never states when to pick this over clients_export_csv or accounting_export_zip, nor any preconditions (e.g. that exports require configured company data).

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