invoices_export_saga_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description discloses the return type (XML text content) and the export format, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a safe read-only operation, whether it triggers side effects, or whether the export is large/paginated. The return format disclosure is valuable but the safety profile is unaddressed. Since this appears to be an export operation (read-like), basic behavioral transparency about it being non-destructive would have added value.

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, dense with information: purpose, target format, sibling relationship, and return type. Every sentence adds value with zero filler. Well front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 9 parameters but all are documented at 100% schema coverage with enums. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states the return format (XML text content). For an export-with-filters tool, the description plus rich schema adequately covers usage. The main gap is that it doesn't note whether the export is synchronous/large or if there are limits, but this is minor for this tool type.

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 the schema fully documents all 9 parameters with clear descriptions and enums. The description correctly notes these are the same filters as invoices_export_csv, which provides cross-tool context. However, it adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema—no format, defaults, or behavioral notes for specific filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the full load.

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 verb (export), resource (invoices), format (Saga XML), and purpose (accounting software integration like Saga C). It explicitly declares 'Accepts the same filters as invoices_export_csv' and 'Returns XML text content', which fully distinguishes this tool from the related invoices_export_csv and invoices_export_efactura_zip sibling tools.

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: this is for accounting software integration and accepts the same filters as invoices_export_csv. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use efactura_zip or receipts_saga_xml instead), but the format-specific purpose is clear enough that an agent understands the use case.

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