ksef_batch_status

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral constraint (requires an active KSeF session) but gives no detail on response shape, possible statuses, or error conditions; with annotation coverage this is acceptable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence, with the main action first and the prerequisite second. No filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only status check, purpose, parameter, and prerequisite are all present. The lack of an output schema is partly mitigated by the simple, self-explanatory nature of a status query, though possible status values are not documented.

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 covers the only parameter 100% with the same reference-number semantics, so the description doesn't add anything new. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the work.

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 the specific verb 'Sprawdź' (check) and identifies the resource as a batch/online KSeF session, which separates it from invoice/auth status tools in the sibling list. It is clear but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so stops short of full 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?

States a concrete prerequisite: an active KSeF session is required. This tells the agent not to call it before authorization/session setup, but it doesn't spell out when this tool should be preferred over ksef_invoice_status or ksef_auth_status.

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