Search Ksef Invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read-style query operation but does not mention pagination, result limits, KSeF environment specifics, or whether the query has any filtering side effects. The phrase 'Query invoices stored in KSeF' is clear but minimal.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan, though it does sacrifice some useful detail for brevity.

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?

With three parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description leaves critical input semantics unexplained. The output schema exists but does not help an agent provide correct inputs, especially for subject_type and date formatting. The tool description is not sufficient for a confident first call.

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 descriptions are entirely empty (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that date_from and date_to define the date range, but it does not explain their expected format or the meaning of subject_type, which remains completely undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') with a clear resource ('invoices stored in KSeF') and a defined scope ('for a date range'). This clearly separates it from siblings like submit_invoice_to_ksef, generate_fa2_invoice, and validate_polish_nip.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ksef_invoice_status. The agent is left to infer the intended use from the tool name and description rather than being told which sibling handles status checks or individual invoice retrieval.

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