get_online_szamla_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—no mention of potential delays, authentication requirements, or data freshness. With adequate annotations, the description should still provide relevant context, but it remains minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it lacks any additional structure or English translation, which might slightly impede an agent's understanding if not Hungarian-aware.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema. Still, the description does not hint at the format or possible values of the status response. For a query tool, this leaves an agent uncertain about what to expect upon invocation. Annotations partially compensate, but completeness is lacking.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (one parameter, document_id, documented as 'A dokumentum ID-ja'). The description itself does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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's purpose: retrieving the NAV Online Számla status for an invoice. It uses a specific verb and resource, and although the description is in Hungarian, it distinguishes the tool from siblings that deal with full documents or lists. However, explicit differentiation from similar tools like get_document is absent.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_document or list_documents. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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