Invoices_getGovernmentInvoiceStatus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful trait (execution in a remote Kuudo deployment), but this is cryptic and does not explain implications such as whether the tool is directly callable, whether it is read-only, or what error/edge-case behavior to expect.

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 short, but the first sentence 'Catalog entry.' is noise and adds no useful information. The core message is in the second sentence, which is clear but not front-loaded with the most actionable detail.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of context. It only mentions that it returns a status, without explaining what input is needed (none is specified), what the output looks like, or how the remote execution affects invocation. An agent would be unsure how to call it and interpret results.

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?

The schema has zero parameters and allows additional properties, which is unusual for a status lookup that logically needs a request identifier. The description does not clarify what identifies the invoice generation request or whether parameters are accepted, so it adds no value beyond the (empty) schema. The 0-parameter baseline is partially offset by this ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('status of an invoice generation request'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like Invoices_getGovernmentInvoiceDocument and Invoices_createGovernmentInvoice. However, the opening phrase 'Catalog entry' introduces ambiguity about whether this is an actual invocable tool or just a metadata placeholder.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using it after calling Invoices_createGovernmentInvoice or for polling status. The deployment note ('Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here') gives some context but does not explain the intended workflow or prerequisites.

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