invoices_export_zip

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

Despite annotations already flagging non-read-only, the description adds the details that actually govern behaviour: asynchronous processing, an exportId + statusUrl return, two ways to await completion (polling or webhook), a Pro-plan gate, and a 100-invoice cap enforced per call.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then execution model, then gating constraints. No filler, and each clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape (exportId, statusUrl). The one meaningful gap is how the finished archive is actually fetched — the exports_download sibling is never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess the retrieval step after polling reports ready.

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 every parameter (includeCsv/includePdf/includeXml/folderStructure/companyId) is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the invoiceIds list and its 100-item limit, adding no meaning about the toggle or folder-structure options.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export a set of invoices (by UUID list) to a ZIP archive') and immediately enumerates the contents (PDFs, XMLs, CSV summary), which implicitly separates it from siblings like invoices_export_csv and invoices_export_efactura_zip that produce only one artifact.

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 gives operating constraints (Pro plan, max 100, async) but never states when to pick this over invoices_export_csv, invoices_export_efactura_zip, or accounting_export_zip. Usage is only implied by the artefact list, so the agent must infer the selection rule itself.

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