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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuine behavioral context: the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access) and the edge case that an unsubmitted invoice shows no transaction ID. It also enumerates the possible status outcomes, which helps an agent interpret results.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and return shape, then the auth note. Slightly verbose due to the enumerated Hungarian status strings, but nothing is wasted and the alternative constraints are clear.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well, describing the status text, transaction ID, and warning fields plus the unsubmitted edge case and auth requirement. Adequate for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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% and the single invoice_number parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Invoice number as shown in Outgoing invoices, from list_invoices'). The description adds no syntax or format details beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (NAV submission status of one invoice) and clearly delineates it from siblings like get_invoice/get_invoice_pdf by focusing on NAV submission state, transaction ID, and warnings. An agent can distinguish it from the other szamlazz-hu read tools without opening a schema.

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 purpose implies when to use it (checking NAV submission state for one invoice), and it notes the invoice must come from list_invoices via the param, but it never states when to prefer this over get_invoice or what to do if a submission has not happened. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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