declarations_prepare

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it returns XML content, an ANAF URL, a Bearer token, and CIF for a local agent to proxy an mTLS request, which is important behavioral and security information.

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 three tightly written sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the return behavior follows, and the operation guidance closes without filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the key return values and the local-agent workflow. Combined with complete schema coverage, an agent has enough to invoke it, though the lack of explicit sibling routing leaves a small 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the operation parameter and its default, but adds no substantial detail beyond the schema for id, companyId, or downloadId.

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: prepare a declaration for agent-based submission. It also clarifies the return payload and local-agent mTLS proxy role, which distinguishes it from generic declaration tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as declarations_submit.

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 gives implied usage via 'agent-based submission' and explains the operation variants. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over declarations_submit, declarations_file_via_agent, or declarations_agent_result.

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