invoices_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation (download, returns XML text), which is helpful, and explains the standards compliance (CIUS-RO, EN 16931). However, it doesn't specify behavior for invoices without an issued state (error handling, edge cases) or whether this only works for issued invoices specifically.

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 action and return format. The second sentence adds meaningful context about standards compliance. No wasted words, though the placement of the return format info could be more prominent.

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 simple 2-parameter download tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and format. However, it doesn't note that only issued invoices are downloadable (the name implies this), or how this relates to the ANAF e-Factura submission workflow (e.g., is this the same file that einvoice_submit would use?). It's adequate but could clarify issuance-state requirements.

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 already documents both parameters (uuid and companyId). The description adds the companyId override behavior context by referencing 'issued invoice' and the ANAF purpose, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema for either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 ('Download') and resource ('UBL 2.1 XML file for an issued invoice'), and specifies the return format ('XML text content'). It distinguishes itself from schema-related tools by focusing on the XML download. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast against siblings like invoices_pdf, invoices_export_saga_xml, or invoices_export_efactura_zip, which are similarly download/export-oriented.

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 implies usage context ('format required for ANAF e-Factura submission') which gives some sense of when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools. With siblings like invoices_export_efactura_zip and invoices_submit available, explicit differentiation would help the agent choose correctly.

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