Notifiche SDI di una fattura

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile as a read operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds that it works with base accounts and retrieves specific notification types (delivery receipt, rejection, non-delivery), but doesn't detail return format, pagination, or what happens when notifications don't exist yet for a fresh invoice. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The first states purpose with examples; the second gives a critical usage note tying it to send_invoice and clarifying it works on a basic account. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool with 2 required, fully-documented params and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and the source of the key parameter. It doesn't describe output shape since there's no output schema, but for a notification-status tool the description covers the essential agent decisions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds the note that invoiceFilename matches what send_invoice returns as uploadFileName, which is useful cross-tool context, but both parameters are already clearly described in the schema. 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 states the tool returns SDI notifications for a single invoice by filename (delivery receipt, rejection, non-delivery), a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it works with basic accounts and that it's the way to track an invoice sent via API, tying directly to send_invoice's uploadFileName.

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 explicitly says when to use it: to track the status of an invoice sent via API, noting it works even with a basic account and referencing that the filename comes from send_invoice's uploadFileName return value. This provides concrete usage context and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_invoices and get_invoice_detail.

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