Get E-Invoice Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds valuable context: polling behavior, terminal states, and honest 'unavailable' response for undeplyed backends, enhancing transparency beyond 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?

Description is concise (3 sentences plus Spanish translation), front-loaded with purpose, then actionable guidance. Every sentence adds value, no filler.

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 status tool, description covers input, output (via mentions of step, ack ID, download URLs), behavior (polling interval), and error case (unavailable response). Output schema exists, so return details are supplemental. Complete enough for agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter well-described. Description adds meaningful context by linking workflowRunId to send_einvoice, providing origin info beyond 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?

Clearly states the tool polls the status of an e-invoice dispatch workflow, with specific verb 'poll' and resource 'status'. Distinguishes from siblings like send_einvoice (which initiates) and get_invoice_einvoice (likely different).

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?

Provides explicit polling interval (5-10 seconds) and terminal states (succeeded/failed/cancelled). Implicitly aligns with send_einvoice through workflowRunId. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but enough context for typical use.

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