get_cancel_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool returns a status code (1=completed, 2=pending, 3=failed) and the API response, but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or what happens if the invoice does not exist or has not been cancelled. The description is insufficient for a tool with no 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the status codes and output. Every word is necessary, and no filler is present. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, the meaning of status codes, and that it returns the API response. However, it lacks context on when to call this tool (e.g., after a cancellation request) and does not describe the response structure further, which could help agents parse the output. Overall, it meets most needs for a simple status check.

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: both 'invoice_date' and 'invoice_number' are described with their types and format. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention how parameters are used together or any constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the cancellation status of an invoice (Z11).' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'cancellation status of an invoice,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'cancel_invoice' or 'batch_cancel_invoice.' The inclusion of the specific code Z11 adds precision.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'cancel_invoice' or 'batch_cancel_invoice.' It lacks explicit conditions for use, prerequisites (e.g., invoice must be cancelled first), or scenarios to avoid. The agent has no information on when to invoke this tool.

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