declarations_file_via_agent

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

Annotations already disclose non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: what Storno prepares, that the local agent signs and uploads, how the PIN is resolved, that status becomes processing, and where the recipisa arrives.

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 front-loaded with the main action and follows with relevant operational details. It is dense but mostly earns its length; phrases like 'the way the web app does' are slightly decorative but still orient the agent.

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, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what happens during the call, prerequisite steps, PIN sources, local agent requirement, status behavior, and the C168 processing constraint. An agent can call it correctly without additional context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only limited extra meaning, mainly reiterating PIN resolution sources, while not elaborating on id or certificateId beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('File a declaration at ANAF') and clearly explains the end-to-end one-call behavior: XML/PDF preparation, local agent signing, e-guvernare upload, and index recording. This distinguishes it from siblings such as declarations_submit, declarations_upload, or agent_submit_declaration_pdf.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisites ('Check declarations_validate first', needs the local agent and PIN) and a key operational constraint ('one C168 per landlord and period in processing at a time'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for when the local agent is unavailable, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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