Get TicketBAI Submission Status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds specific behavior: polling, return values, and common statuses (submitted, accepted, rejected, error) with explanations and timing guidance.

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?

Very concise: 4 sentences in English, then Spanish translation. No redundant words. Structured with a clear purpose, return fields, and bulleted statuses.

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?

For a polling tool with 1 parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, what it returns, status meanings and actions, and timing guidance. No missing information.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds context by linking invoiceId to ticketbai_submit, but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 hacienda acknowledgement status for a TicketBAI submission. It lists the returned fields (TBAI identifier, territory, state) and distinguishes from sibling tools like ticketbai_submit and face_status.

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 after ticketbai_submit, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It gives status-specific actions (e.g., check again for submitted, correction guidance for rejected).

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