declarations_submit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key side effects: generates XML, uploads to ANAF SPV, and begins async status polling (implying a multi-step async process that returns before submission completes). It also discloses state constraints (draft/validated only). This is reasonably transparent for a submission tool.

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?

Three sentences, zero wasted words. Each sentence earns its place: the workflow, the async behavior, and the state constraint. Highly front-loaded with the core verb and resource.

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 submission tool with 2 well-documented params, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is largely complete. It covers the workflow, the async polling behavior, and the valid input states. It might benefit from noting error scenarios or what the initial return value indicates, but for this complexity level, it's adequately complete.

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 both parameters (id, companyId) are documented in the schema. The description adds context about the state requirement but doesn't elaborate on the id parameter's meaning beyond 'UUID to submit' or the companyId override behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already covers parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the verb (Submit), resource (declaration to ANAF), and the workflow (generates XML, uploads to ANAF SPV, begins async status polling). It distinguishes from siblings like declarations_validate and invoices_submit by specifying the ANAF submission pipeline. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with einvoice_submit or declarations_sync which are closely related siblings.

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 states it works on 'draft' or 'validated' declarations, implying it requires a declaration to already be in one of those states. However, there's no explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or mention of alternatives like declarations_validate (which likely prepares) or declarations_sync (which might sync statuses). The async polling aspect is noted but prerequisites like ANAF token/SPV configuration are not mentioned.

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