declarations_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states this is a list operation returning paginated results with status and period, which communicates the read-safe nature. However, it doesn't disclose what happens without filters, whether deleted declarations appear, or ordering behavior. A 3 is fair given it establishes read semantics without deeper detail.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. It states the scope ('active company'), the filtering options, and the return content (pagination, status, period) efficiently. No redundant exposition or restating of schema fields.

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 list tool with well-documented schema (100% coverage, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential contract: what's listed, filtering, and return shape. It lacks detail on default behavior when no filters are applied, but with no output schema and straightforward params, this is complete enough.

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 7 parameters well (page, limit, type/status enums with allowed values, year/month ranges). The description adds the companyId override note about STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var via schema, and the description itself mentions filters by type/status/year/month, aligning with the schema. Since schema does heavy lifting, baseline 3 applies, but the description's reference to the filtering dimensions adds marginal value, warranting a 4.

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+resource combination: 'List tax declarations for the active company.' It clearly communicates the read-only nature and scope. It distinguishes from declarations_get (which retrieves a single declaration) but doesn't explicitly name it, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 implies this is the listing tool within the declarations family and notes it supports filtering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs declarations_get, declarations_sync, or declarations_refresh_statuses. The 'active company' context is useful but no alternatives are named or exclusions given.

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