Get VeriFactu Submission Status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (timestamp, hash, AEAT response code, QR verification URL), which goes beyond annotation signals. No contradictions.

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 two sentences (English and Spanish), front-loading the purpose. While somewhat redundant (Spanish duplicate), it is still concise and clear with no extraneous information.

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-only status tool with one required parameter and an output schema (implied by listed return fields), the description is complete. It covers the return values and references the Spanish e-invoice context, which is sufficient given the annotations and output schema.

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 'invoiceId' described as 'Invoice ID / ID de la factura'. The description does not add further meaning to the parameter (no format, constraints, or examples), so 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'VeriFactu (AEAT Spanish e-invoice chain) submission status for a specific invoice', specifying the exact resource and action. It lists specific return fields (timestamp, hash, AEAT response code, QR URL), making it distinct from siblings like 'verifactu_resubmit' (which resubmits) and 'ticketbai_status' (different e-invoice chain).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'verifactu_resubmit' or 'face_status'). The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.

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