invoices_export_zip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: asynchronous processing, returns exportId/statusUrl for polling, webhook option, Pro plan requirement, and 100-invoice cap. It doesn't mention the subsequent exports_download step to fetch the file, which is a minor gap given the related exports_download sibling.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. Each sentence earns its place: what it does, how it's async, and the constraints (Pro plan, cap). Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complex async export tool with 6 params (including an enum), the description covers the key operational aspects well. With no output schema and no annotations, it explains the async workflow. It could mention the exports_download step for retrieving the resulting archive, which is a notable omission given it's the natural follow-up in the toolchain.

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%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema. The description reiterates the max 100 invoiceIds and Pro requirement for includePdf, adding marginal value. It doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for folderStructure, includeCsv, includeXml, or companyId, so 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?

The description clearly states the verb (export), the resource (invoices by UUID list), the output format (ZIP with PDFs, XMLs, CSV summary), and distinguishes from siblings like invoices_export_csv and invoices_export_efactura_zip by specifying the ZIP+bundle nature. It's specific and differentiated.

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 explains it's asynchronous (returns exportId and statusUrl, poll or webhook), requires Pro plan, and caps at 100 invoices. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the alternative export tools (e.g., invoices_export_csv, invoices_export_efactura_zip) but the async/bundle/plan details give clear usage context.

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