declaration_form_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool returns (spec fields or raw XSD) and clarifies the xsd parameter behavior, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. This is inferable from its purpose but not directly disclosed.

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 long paragraph that packs many details; it is informative but could be more scannable. It covers multiple aspects of the spec, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'ANAF' and 'correctly'). Still, it's not excessively verbose.

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 purpose as a spec getter, the description adequately covers what to expect, how to use the xsd flag, and the relationship to declaration_build. It even includes a practical note about nomenclator codes. No output schema is needed, and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 descriptions for both parameters are present and clear, and the tool description adds context by explaining the type parameter with an example (C168) and related guidance about address codes. This goes beyond the basic schema text.

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 provides everything needed to fill an ANAF declaration form correctly, including JSON schema, XML mapping, business rules, filing steps, and an example. It also specifies a prerequisite relationship with declaration_build, distinguishing its purpose as a reference lookup rather than an action.

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 explicitly instructs to read it before using declaration_build, giving a direct usage condition. It also advises that C168 addresses need codes from anaf_nomenclator_* and never to invent CNPs or CUIs, providing practical guidance. However, it does not contrast with other alternative tools like declaration_forms, so it's not fully comprehensive.

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