Get Ksef Invoice Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Retrieve' and 'processing status' strongly imply a read-only operation, but the description does not mention potential error cases, polling semantics, or confirmation that no state changes occur. The read-only implication compensates partly for the missing 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It states the operation, the target resource, and the relevant API version efficiently.

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 one required parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance about when to use this versus the search-related sibling or how to handle unresolved statuses, but the output schema likely covers response details.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter schema already explains the '{sessionRef}:{invoiceRef}' format and the option to pass only the sessionRef for session status. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 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 identifies the operation as retrieving the processing status of a KSeF invoice, with an explicit version qualifier ('API v2'). It is specific about verb and resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_ksef_invoices.

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 word 'submitted' implies the tool should be used after invoice submission, and the sibling submit_invoice_to_ksef provides contextual contrast. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search_ksef_invoices or when it is not appropriate.

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