declarations_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core behavior—returns a paginated list with status and period—and implies a read-only operation through 'List'. It does not, however, address authentication requirements, the meaning of 'active company' beyond the schema's companyId param hint, or any error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 and front-loads the primary action, then filters, then return shape. There is no filler or redundant detail, making it easy to scan. Each sentence 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a high-level return description (paginated list with status and period) but does not specify the complete response shape or pagination metadata. The schema covers all input parameters, so input is fully specified. The missing output schema places a heavier burden on the description to describe return values, and it only partially meets that.

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 input schema already documents all seven parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the grouping of the main filters (type, status, year, month), which slightly reinforces their purpose but does not go beyond schema semantics. It does not clarify the relationship between 'active company' and the companyId override beyond what the schema states.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('tax declarations'), and a scope ('for the active company'), and mentions filtering and pagination. It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'declarations_get' by indicating a plural, paginated collection rather than a single record. This is a focused and unambiguous purpose 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?

The description clearly implies usage when an agent needs to browse or filter declarations by type, status, year, or month. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'declarations_get' for a single declaration or 'declarations_download_xml' for file retrieval, but the 'List' verb and the filter list provide sufficient context for selecting this tool. The absence of explicit 'use this when' or 'not when' language is a minor gap.

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