es__query_verifactu_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses required environment variables/certificates, the prerequisite that the record was already submitted, the 'deferred' polling pattern, and the possible final states. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or rate limits, but 'Consulta' and the polling context imply a safe status-check operation.

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 four short sentences with no filler. It leads with the core purpose, then explains when and how to use it, and finally lists required credentials. Every sentence earns its place and front-loads the most important 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 tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description provides the necessary operational context: the trigger event, wait behavior, expected final states, and credential requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could optionally mention error or edge-case behavior.

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 all parameters and the description does not need to compensate. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, though it does helpfully reference retry_after_seconds from the submit tool, which is external context rather than parameter semantics.

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 a specific action ('Consulta el EstadoRegistro') and resource ('un registro VERI*FACTU ya enviado'), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly contrast with other status-query siblings like es__get_face_invoice_status or es__query_sii_status, so it is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 gives explicit usage context: use after a 'deferred' result from es__submit_verifactu_to_aeat, wait retry_after_seconds, and confirm the final state before continuing. This is strong guidance, though it does not provide exclusion criteria or explicitly mention when to prefer alternative tools.

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