invoices_export_efactura_zip

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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so this disclosure is genuinely useful: it reveals the asynchronous processing at more than 100 invoices and says that the call returns a job ID instead of a ZIP. What is missing is the next step: which tool to poll and how the finished archive is retrieved or how long it lives.

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 sentences, no filler. The core purpose comes first, and the async threshold is stated right after it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape. It does this in part: it mentions a job ID, but it omits the immediate synchronous response for small batches and never explains how the ZIP is retrieved or delivered. An agent still cannot complete the workflow using this definition alone.

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%, and all four parameters, including the direction enum, are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about filtering semantics, such as whether the date range applies to the issue date or the e-Factura transmission date, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It names a concrete verb and resource: exporting e-Factura XML files as a ZIP archive. That distinguishes it from the CSV, SAGA-XML, and PDF export siblings. However, it never addresses the closely named sibling invoices_export_zip, so a user picking between those two has no guidance.

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 context: use this when you need e-Factura XML files packed together. It also explains that the behavior changes above 100 invoices. However, it never states when to choose this option over invoices_export_zip, exports_download, or accounting_export_zip, and it gives no prerequisites such as a connection or token for e-Factura.

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