declarations_refresh_statuses

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states that the operation checks SPV messages, downloads recipise (a specific artifact), and returns 202 indicating async processing. This goes beyond a generic 'refresh' claim by describing the mechanism and async nature. It doesn't mention side effects or failure behaviors, but the described behavior is reasonably transparent for a status-refresh action.

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 filler. Every phrase carries meaning: scope (all in-flight), source (ANAF), mechanism (SPV messages), side effect (downloads recipise), and async return code (202). No redundancy with the tool name or schema.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the triggering action, mechanism, scope, and async return. The use of unusual terminology like 'recipise' (likely a typo for 'recipisa'/receipt) without clarification is a minor gap, but overall the tool is adequately specified for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for the single companyId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by noting that companyId 'overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var', which explains the fallback behavior and when the parameter is needed vs optional. With only one parameter at full schema coverage, the added env-var context is a genuine bonus 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?

Description states a specific verb (refresh), a specific resource (statuses for in-flight declarations from ANAF), and clarifies the scope (submitted/processing declarations). It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like declarations_sync, declarations_submit, and anaf_sync_trigger by focusing on refreshing statuses via SPV messages, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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 the tool is for refreshing in-flight declaration statuses, which provides some usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs declarations_sync or anaf_sync_trigger, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The scope is directional (only submitted/processing declarations) but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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