ksef_get_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint as true, so the safety profile is clear. The description does not add or contradict any behavioral details; it simply states 'Fetch,' which aligns with the read-only nature. No extra context on side effects or return behavior is given, but annotations cover the key aspects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part ('Fetch a KSeF invoice by reference number') is essential and directly communicates the core action.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, one required) and has an output schema, so the description provides a minimal viable understanding. However, it lacks parameter details and any context about the reference number's origin or format, which reduce completeness for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 0%, meaning the description provides no explanation of the parameters. The description does not clarify what 'ksef_reference_number' is, what format it requires, or what 'include_xml' does. With two parameters and no elaboration, the agent must infer from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 (Fetch), the resource (KSeF invoice), and the identifier method (by reference number). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like ksef_list_invoices or ksef_submit_invoice, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ksef_list_invoices for finding invoices or ksef_prepare_invoice for creating. No prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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