anaf_tokens

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe what is returned (token ID, CIF, expiry, validity status), which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no tokens exist. For a list operation the burden is lighter, but no annotation coverage means the description should say more.

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 two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the verb and scope, second sentence adds the per-CIF context and return fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete. It states what it lists, the association to companies/CIFs, and the return fields. There's no output schema, but the description adequately covers return values. Missing minor details like pagination or error cases, but these are less critical for a list endpoint.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema covers 100% and there's nothing to document. The description adds meaning about the output fields (token ID, CIF, expiry, validity status) which is helpful context beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 lists ANAF OAuth tokens for the authenticated user, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ANAF OAuth tokens'). It distinguishes from related tools like anaf_create_token_link and anaf_delete_token by focusing on listing rather than creating/deleting. The CIF per-company context is a useful differentiating detail.

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 establishes context (tokens associated with authenticated user, each tied to a specific company CIF for e-Factura). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like anaf_sync_status or anaf_create_token_link, nor any exclusions. The 'authenticated user' qualifier implies auth is needed but doesn't state a prerequisite explicitly.

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