suppliers_export_saga_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output is base64-encoded XML compatible with SAGA import, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (export typically is, but not stated), whether it depends on company configuration, or whether there are size/scale limitations for large supplier counts.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and add the key output format detail. No wasted words. Could potentially mention more, but what's there is efficiently written.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a single param, the description must carry more context. It fails to state whether this is destructive or safe, whether it requires setup (accounting export settings), how to use the returned base64 string (decode to file? buffer?), and any limitations. For an export tool whose result shape is entirely unknown to the agent, this is a meaningful gap.

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 a single optional companyId parameter that has a clear description ('Company UUID (overrides configured default)'). The description mentions the default company concept implicitly through the parameter, adding minimal context but not materially supplementing the schema. 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) and resource (all suppliers) plus the target format (SAGA accounting XML). It distinguishes this from suppliers_export_csv clearly by format. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from clients_export_saga_xml or other saga exports beyond the resource type, which is implicitly clear.

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 the output format ('base64-encoded XML file') but provides no guidance on when this should be used vs alternatives like suppliers_export_csv or the other SAGA XML export tools. No context about prerequisites (e.g., needing accounting settings configured) or when this is the right choice.

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