it__check_sdi_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by stating that the response is a local status snapshot rather than a live SDI response, which matters for trust and interpretation. It does not detail edge cases like missing/stale identifiers, but the core behavioral caveat is explicit.

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 consists of exactly two high-signal sentences: the main purpose and the key asynchronous/local-status caveat. There is no padding or repetition.

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-oriented tool with an output schema, the description covers the workflow context (recently submitted invoice, asynchronous SDI status) and the core semantic ('last known local status'). It does not mention error behavior if nothing is on file, or how to obtain the identifier earlier in the flow, but these are minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does say the identifier belongs to the previously submitted invoice and is used as the lookup key, which helps. However, it doesn't provide an example, required format, or where the identifier typically comes from, such as the response from submission.

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 immediately states the action ('Check the status') and the resource ('a previously submitted invoice'), using the specific 'IdentificativoSDI' as the lookup key. It also clarifies what the tool actually returns: the last known local status, which distinguishes it from submission and notification parsing tools.

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 clearly implies this is for invoices already submitted and warns that SDI status arrives asynchronously, so the value here is the last locally known state. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like it__parse_sdi_notification and when to prefer them, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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