ksef_invoice_get

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it requires an active session and returns the full invoice XML. It does not disclose not-found or error behavior, but for a simple read operation with annotation coverage this is adequate.

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 short sentences with no unnecessary words. The main action and prerequisite are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: what is returned, the identifier used, and the session requirement. It would be more complete if it distinguished itself from ksef_invoice_xml or described error behavior, but it is not deficient given the low complexity.

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 100%, so the ksefNumber parameter is already documented. The description refers to retrieving by KSeF number but adds no additional format, validation, or usage nuance beyond the schema.

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 action ('Pobierz') and the resource ('fakturę XML po numerze KSeF'), and specifies the return value. However, it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'ksef_invoice_xml', leaving ambiguity about which tool should be preferred for the same apparent operation.

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 only usage guidance is the prerequisite that an active session is required. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ksef_invoice_status or ksef_invoice_xml, nor any exclusions or fallback context.

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