Get TicketBAI Submission Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context by listing common status values with explanations and suggested actions (e.g., check again, correction guidance), enhancing transparency beyond 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, uses bullet points for status values, and includes a Spanish translation. Slightly verbose with redundant translation, but overall concise and well-structured.

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 output schema exists and the tool is simple (one parameter), the description covers common statuses and typical use case. Missing details on error handling or timeouts, but acceptable for a status check 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% with a clear description of the invoiceId parameter. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics but explains status values, which indirectly helps, so 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 it polls the hacienda acknowledgement status for a TicketBAI submission, listing specific return fields (TBAI identifier, territory, state). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ticketbai_submit and verifactu_status by focusing on status polling.

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 ticketbai_submit but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like face_status or get_einvoice_status. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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