customs_declare

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the operation ('declare or update') but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or consequences of updating. This is a significant gap for a mutation-oriented tool.

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: it opens with a clear purpose statement, then lists each parameter in a compact but informative format. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no filler or redundancy. The formatting is consistent and readable despite the length needed for 8 parameters.

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 complexity (8 required parameters) and the lack of annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers all parameters thoroughly, specifies value constraints, and defines the operation. However, it does not address edge cases such as error handling, idempotency, or how 'update' interacts with an existing declaration, which would round out completeness.

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 provides zero description coverage (0%), but the tool description compensates thoroughly. Every parameter is explained with meaningful details: value ranges ('1 - unlimited'), maximum lengths, valid boolean values ('true'/'false'), and ownership context ('assigned by the ACQP', 'assigned by the merchant'). This fully adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's function: 'used by the Acquiring Service Provider (ACQP) to declare a payment to customs or update an existing declaration.' This provides a specific verb ('declare'/'update') and resource ('payment to customs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like query_customs_declare.

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 usage context (declaring or updating customs declarations) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. For example, no guidance like 'use query_customs_declare for retrieving declaration status' is provided.

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