declaration_forms

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely new context: the current coverage is limited to C168 and D212 (an important expectation-setter), it is public with no account required, and it returns three fields per item. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or failure modes, but for a tiny static catalog that is minor.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately qualified by concrete form examples and the return fields. The only weakness is the awkward opener ("forms Storno can build from plain JSON for you"), which spends words on product voice rather than agent-relevant detail.

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 parameterless, read-only listing with no output schema, the definition supplies what is needed: what is listed, which forms currently exist, what fields come back, and that no auth is needed. An explicit pointer to the build/spec siblings would close the remaining gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain inputs and correctly focuses on output content instead.

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?

Identifies the resource (ANAF declaration forms the product can build) and states the return shape (type, title, description per form), which marks it as a catalog/discovery tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like declaration_build or declaration_form_spec, though the opening sentence is a fragment ("ANAF declaration forms Storno can build from plain JSON for you") that reads as marketing rather than a verb-led statement.

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?

Use is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point to discover which forms are buildable before calling declaration_build or declaration_form_spec. No sibling is named, no when-not condition, and no statement of what to do with the returned types is given.

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