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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate destructiveHint and non-idempotence. It explicitly states the action is 'legally binding and irreversible once the tax authority accepts it,' warns that two positions (210220 and 210240) are accusations against the issuer, and details that only 210240 accepts a reason and requires one. This adds critical behavioral context that the annotations do not convey.

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 relatively long but every sentence contributes necessary information. It front-loads the purpose and then adds warnings and parameter details in a logical order. It could be slightly more condensed without losing essential guidance, but it remains efficient given the complexity of the tool.

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 tool's legal and irreversible nature, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the purpose, the four positions, the reason requirement, confirmation steps, and caution against misusing accusatory codes. The presence of an output schema covers the response format, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden. It explains the meaning of each manifestation enum value (what each code confirms or denies) and specifies the reason parameter's behavior—that it is required only for 210240 and causes refusal for others if sent. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare schema titles and enum.

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 clear, specific verb and resource: 'Declare this company's position on a document issued against it.' It then enumerates the four possible positions (210200, 210210, 210220, 210240) with their meanings, making the tool's function unambiguous and easily distinguished from siblings like issue_invoice or cancel_invoice.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (when the company needs to declare a position on a received document) and provides important usage constraints, such as requiring human confirmation due to legal binding and instructing to ask when unsure rather than selecting accusatory positions. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or mention when not to use it in favor of another, so it stops short of a 5.

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