It Check Sdi Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the status is 'last known local status' and that SDI is asynchronous, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential staleness, whether it polls, or what happens if no status is known yet. It's adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, and the key information (what it does, the async caveat) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only status check, the description is nearly complete. It explains the async nature and the local status limitation. It doesn't describe the output schema, but an output schema exists, so that's not required. Minor gap: no mention of error cases (e.g., unknown IdentificativoSDI), but overall sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the parameter is the IdentificativoSDI of a previously submitted invoice, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., length, pattern) or clarify that it's the same identifier returned by submission. 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 tool checks the status of a previously submitted invoice by its IdentificativoSDI, using a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a previously submitted invoice'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like it__submit_to_sdi and it__parse_sdi_notification by focusing on status retrieval.

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 explains that SDI communicates status asynchronously via notifications and that this tool returns the last known local status, giving clear context for when to use it (after submission, to check status). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its role among siblings.

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