Get SdI Document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds valuable context beyond annotations, such as the storage location ('POP storage'), the document type (SdI/FatturaPA), and a critical requirement ('Growth+ plan with active SdI via POP integration'). This helps the agent understand prerequisites and trust boundaries.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes a use-case sentence, a requirement line, and a concise Args list. Every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence ('Fetches a previously submitted or preserved...') is somewhat redundant with the first and could be merged. Still, it is efficiently written overall.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at what the response contains. It does this indirectly through response_format options ('readable summary' vs 'raw data'), which is helpful. However, it lacks information on the environment parameter, error cases, or what happens if the UUID is not found. Given the tool's simplicity and available annotations, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 67% (uuid and response_format have descriptions; environment does not). The description adds meaning by explaining response_format values ('markdown' for readable summary, 'json' for raw data), but it omits the environment parameter entirely, leaving it undefined in both schema and description. uuid is adequately described in schema, so the description adds little there. Overall, the description partially compensates but leaves a gap.

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 primary action: 'Retrieve an SdI document from POP storage by UUID.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pop_verify_sdi_document (verification) and pop_get_peppol_document (Peppol format) by focusing on SdI retrieval. The stated use cases (auditing, re-downloading, verifying stored invoices) further clarify its scope.

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 usage context: 'Useful for auditing, re-downloading, or verifying stored invoices' and specifies a prerequisite ('Growth+ plan with active SdI via POP integration'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, which prevents a 5, but the context is sufficient for an agent to make a reasonable selection.

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