invoices_export_receipts_saga_xml

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 discloses the export scope (all outgoing invoice payments), the account override mechanism, and the card leaf analytic requirement. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, side effects, output location, or how exported data is delivered (download, stored object, etc.), and lacks detail on what happens to existing exports or the format of the generated file.

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 covering purpose, scope, parameters, and a domain-specific requirement. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. The only slight inefficiency is the parenthetical '(incasari)' which adds a Romanian localization note, but it's arguably useful domain context. No wasted words.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description carries substantial burden. It covers purpose, scope, parameters, and a domain constraint. Missing elements include return/delivery details (how the exported XML is returned or stored) and explicit distinction from sibling export functions, but for a moderately complex export tool with 4 well-described parameters, this is reasonably complete.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description (companyId, accountBank, accountCard, accountCash). The description adds meaningful context on top by explaining the override purpose and the SAGA leaf analytic requirement for cards. However, the description adds moderate value beyond the schema—it frames the purpose but doesn't add significant new semantics beyond what each parameter description already conveys.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Export payment receipts (incasari) in Saga XML format... Exports all outgoing invoice payments for accounting software integration.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like invoices_export_saga_xml and invoices_export_payments_saga_xml by explicitly naming the format and scope (outgoing invoice payments for accounting integration).

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 clear context on when to use it (accounting software integration) and how to use the override parameters, including the important SAGA-specific requirement that cards require a leaf analytic like 5125.2. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus the closely-related invoices_export_saga_xml or invoices_export_payments_saga_xml siblings, which would be valuable given the naming similarity.

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