invoices_export_efactura_zip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the critical async behavior for large batches and the job ID return for polling. However, it doesn't disclose what happens for small batches (synchronous direct ZIP return?), any authentication requirements, or whether data is destroyed/modified. Lacks both a concrete return format for sync case and the polling endpoint name.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose in sentence one, behavioral note in sentence two. Every sentence adds value. No filler or redundancy. Efficient and well-structured.

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 async behavior for large batches, the description could be more complete about what the synchronous response looks like for small batches and how the job ID ties into exports_download or other polling tools. There's no output schema, so the description should explain the return value but doesn't. For a tool with 100% schema coverage and 4 params, it's adequate but leaves the sync/async response contract ambiguous.

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 all 4 parameters are documented in the schema (direction required, dateFrom/dateTo filters, companyId override). The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation fully, though the description could have clarified how dateFrom/dateTo combine with direction.

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 purpose: 'Export e-Factura XML files as a ZIP archive.' It uses a specific verb (export) and resource (e-Factura XML files) with output format (ZIP). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like invoices_export_zip, invoices_export_saga_xml, or invoices_export_csv, but the e-Factura XML specificity is reasonably clear.

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 a clear context signal about large batches (>100 invoices) being processed asynchronously with a job ID to poll. However, it doesn't provide explicit 'when to use this vs alternatives' guidance relative to invoices_export_zip, invoices_export_csv, or invoices_export_saga_xml. The async behavior is implied as 'for large batches' but no polling tool reference is named.

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