ksef_invoice_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds the prerequisite of an active session. It does not disclose return behavior, possible statuses, or polling semantics, but the annotation lowers the burden and no contradiction is present.

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 deliver the purpose and prerequisites with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read-only status check, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what prerequisites apply, and which references are needed. The lack of an output schema or status-value enumeration is a minor gap since the invocation requirements are fully specified.

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%, with both parameters clearly described as session reference number and invoice reference number. The description restates these in prose but adds no extra guidance about their format, origin, or relationship.

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 states a specific action and resource: checking the invoice processing status within a KSeF session. It is clear and matches the tool's name, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling status tools like ksef_batch_status.

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 provides a useful precondition: an active session is required, and it names the two reference numbers needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as ksef_invoice_get, ksef_invoices_query, or ksef_batch_status.

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