Get NAV Online Számla status

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail about error conditions: 4xx errors and 'NavOnlineSzamla is not found' indicate no NAV record exists, not a NAV failure. This helps an agent correctly interpret failures and avoid false conclusions.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states what is returned, the second gives the usage intent, and the remaining sentences clarify error semantics. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 is complete: it covers return fields, intended use, and error interpretation. An agent has enough information to decide when to invoke it and how to interpret both success and failure responses.

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 already documents the single required parameter 'id' as 'Document id' with full coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra detail about where to find the id or its format, but for a single clearly-named parameter, this is acceptable.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the NAV Online Számla reporting status of a document' and names the concrete outputs (transaction id, status, validation messages). It clearly distinguishes this from generic document tools like billingo_get_document by focusing solely on NAV reporting 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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to check whether reporting succeeded.' It also explains the meaning of errors in context, clarifying that a missing NAV record is not a failure. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the use case is clear enough for an agent.

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