Get SdI Invoice Status

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining asynchronous processing, notification delivery, status meanings, and the need to wait and retry if no notifications are returned. This adds significant behavioral context that the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) do not capture, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, a bulleted list of statuses, a note on retry, and an args section. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is concise without being under-specified.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description provides useful context by listing possible statuses and the meaning of response_format. It explains retry behavior and ties the uuid to pop_create_sdi_invoice. However, it does not describe the full response structure (e.g., fields beyond status/notifications) or error handling, leaving some ambiguity about the exact return format.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema descriptions for uuid and response_format without adding new information, and it omits the environment parameter entirely. There is no added value beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the SdI processing status and notifications for a submitted invoice.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pop_get_sdi_document (which retrieves the document itself) by focusing on status polling and notifications.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'After submitting an invoice to the Italian SdI... This tool polls the current status and all notifications.' It also advises on retry behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which would earn a 5.

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