agent_submit_declaration_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the process (signs, uploads, returns index), the prerequisite (PIN), the output (upload index), and the post-submission outcome (recipisa arrives in SPV and StareD112). It does not detail error handling or reversibility, but it gives a solid behavioral picture for an agent to anticipate side effects.

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 long but dense sentence that efficiently packs purpose, process, output, and prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then adds necessary context. While it could be split into clearer bullets, it avoids fluff and every clause earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies input requirements (DUK PDF), the signing mechanism, the destination portal, the return value (index), how to track, and the PIN prerequisite. It covers all essential aspects an agent needs to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema, especially for the undocumented parameters: it explains the 'pin' parameter accepts either 'pin', 'STORNO_AGENT_PIN', or a remembered PIN, and references 'certificate' which maps to certificateId. It also clarifies 'file' as a DUK-generated PDF, and the schema already covers fileName with a description. This fully compensates for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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 verb 'File a declaration PDF' and the resource (declaration PDF at ANAF), along with the specific process (agent signs and uploads, returns index). It distinguishes itself from sibling submission tools by specifying it is for DUK-generated PDFs and uses the local agent, making its 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: for PDFs made by DUKIntegrator with embedded XML, and it directs tracking to a specific sibling (anaf_declaration_status). It does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., when not to use it), but the input-type specification effectively narrows the use case. That's clear context without explicit alternatives.

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