Get FACe Submission Status

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

Annotations mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by listing common FACe status codes and their meanings, helping the agent interpret results. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is concise with two short paragraphs (English then Spanish). It front-loads the purpose and includes a helpful status code table. Slightly longer due to bilingual content, but justified by the use case.

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?

An output schema exists to document return structure, and the description explains what is returned (state code, description, registro number). Combined with the status code table, the tool is fully specified. The bilingual support adds completeness for Spanish users.

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?

Only one parameter (invoiceId) with 100% schema description coverage. The description mentions the parameter only implicitly in the context of the status codes and the note about face_submit. The schema already provides adequate meaning, so description adds marginal value.

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 it polls the status of a FACe invoice submission and lists the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like face_submit (submission) by focusing on status retrieval.

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 use after submission by requiring the same invoiceId from face_submit. It does not explicitly state prerequisites or when not to use, but the context of polling status is clear. The sibling list includes face_submit, providing alternative context.

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