declarations_refresh_statuses

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

Adds crucial behavior beyond the annotations: the call is retired, will return 409 AGENT_REQUIRED, and fails because ANAF SPVWS2 requires the qualified certificate over mTLS. This prevents wasted attempts and explains the exact failure mode.

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 compact sentences with 'RETIRED' front-loaded so the agent learns the critical constraint immediately. No wasted text.

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?

Complete enough for a non-functional stub: it explains why it fails and the general alternative path. Naming the precise agent-based sibling tool would make it fully actionable.

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% and the single optional companyId parameter is already documented there. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('refresh statuses') and immediately discloses that the server-side implementation is RETIRED and always answers 409 AGENT_REQUIRED. It does not name the exact sibling agent tool to use instead, which keeps it from a 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?

Explicitly tells the agent not to use this server-side path and points to the web app via the local storno-agent. The exclusion is clear, but the specific MCP tool or workflow to invoke is left implicit among many agent-related siblings.

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