declaration_document

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a behavioral disclosure. It also mentions the document includes the Art. 43 procedure, Art. 48 marking, and ledger hash, which tells the agent what content to expect. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it doesn't disclose details like whether the document is generated on-the-fly, whether it can fail for missing seq, or what the exact output format is.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key legal references and the read-only note. Every clause adds information: the resource, the ordering, the procedure, the marking, and the hash binding. No wasted words.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers the main purpose and content of the document. However, it lacks an output schema and doesn't describe the return format (e.g., JSON structure, fields), nor does it mention error conditions or how the document relates to the broader declaration workflow. Given the legal/regulatory context, a bit more context about when this document is needed would help.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter `seq`. The description does explain that `seq` is the sequence number of the declaration ('The declaration at `seq`'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the type of sequence, its range, or how to find it, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb ('The declaration at `seq` as one machine-readable document') and identifies the resource (declaration document at a sequence number). It also references the Annex V order and Art. 47(1), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like record_declaration or declaration-related tools, though the read-only nature and 'document' output help.

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 implies this is a read-only retrieval tool for a specific declaration document, and the 'Read-only' tag signals it's safe to call. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like record_declaration or export_audit_trail, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for when this document is needed.

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