declarations_refresh_statuses

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose side effects and operational behavior. It only says statuses are refreshed through the local storno-agent, without clarifying whether this triggers background work, modifies state, requires local infrastructure, or returns a synchronous result. The behavior remains largely opaque.

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 short and front-loaded with the 'RETIRED' flag, but the phrasing is choppy and somewhat contradictory: it calls the tool a status refresh yet frames it as an answer to a 409 error. The two sentences could be consolidated into a clearer, more coherent explanation.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of context, but it omits expected behavior, return format, failure modes, and relationship to the local storno-agent. A caller would likely need external documentation to understand how to invoke this safely and interpret the result.

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 single optional parameter companyId is described as 'Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var)', which clearly explains its meaning and precedence over the environment variable. This adds useful semantic detail beyond the plain schema type.

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 indicates a server-side status refresh and mentions handling a 409 AGENT_REQUIRED error via the local storno-agent, but the 'RETIRED' prefix and cryptic phrasing make the intended action and current relevance unclear. It names the resource ('statuses') and a verb ('refresh'), yet does not clearly distinguish when this tool should be selected over siblings like declarations_sync or declarations_agent_result.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many closely related declaration/SPV tools. The mention of the 409 error and mTLS certificate requirement hints at a specific scenario, but it does not explain prerequisites, fallbacks, or why the tool is marked RETIRED.

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