Get TicketBAI Submission Status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing status values and their meanings, especially the polling recommendation for 'submitted' state, which goes beyond basic 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 front-loaded with purpose and status list. The bilingual Spanish section is redundant but not excessively long. It is generally efficient, though a single language would improve conciseness.

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 one parameter, 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description covers the key behaviors (polling, status values). It doesn't need to explain return values as the output schema exists. Adequate for a polling status 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?

Only one parameter (invoiceId) with schema description already explaining it's the Frihet invoice ID. The description adds that it's the same ID used in ticketbai_submit, providing helpful cross-reference. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100%.

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 hacienda acknowledgment status for a TicketBAI submission, returning the TBAI identifier, territory, and confirmation/rejection state. It uses specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes from related tools like ticketbai_submit.

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 after submission and provides polling intervals for the 'submitted' status. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear. It could mention alternatives like get_einvoice_status but isn't required.

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