Get E-Invoice Status

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

Description adds significant context beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive): polling behavior, honest unavailability, and return fields. No contradictions 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 English portion is concise and front-loaded with key purpose and behavior. The Spanish duplicate adds no value for English agents and could be omitted, but overall the description is efficient.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description covers polling behavior, expected response fields, and honest error handling. Missing details on invalid workflowRunId or rate limits, but generally sufficient for a polling tool.

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 parameter (workflowRunId) is well-described in the schema. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond contextualizing the polling process. Baseline score 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 tool polls the status of an e-invoice dispatch workflow, specifying what is returned (current step, ack ID, download URLs). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_einvoice and other status endpoints.

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?

Provides explicit polling interval (5-10 seconds) and termination conditions ('succeeded', 'failed', 'cancelled'). Also notes honest 'unavailable' response. Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but given context of e-invoice, usage is clear.

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