declarations_submit

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

Annotations already declare openWorld and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: the tool generates XML, pushes to an external SPV endpoint, and starts async status polling — telling the agent the operation has external side effects and continues after return. It does not cover failure handling or whether it can be re-run safely.

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 short sentences, action verb first, pipeline mechanics second, precondition last. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say what the agent gets back and what to do next after the async polling begins (e.g. poll declarations_refresh_statuses or anaf_declaration_status). It hints at async behavior but leaves the follow-up and return value unspecified.

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% for both parameters (id, companyId), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics including the env-var override. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is baseline-acceptable here.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Submit a declaration to ANAF') and enumerates the pipeline steps (XML generation, SPV upload, async polling), which separates it from bare helpers like declarations_validate or declarations_upload. It still doesn't name a sibling explicitly, so the boundary with declarations_prepare/declarations_upload must be inferred.

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 sentence 'Works on "draft" or "validated" declarations' gives a real precondition for use, which is useful. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to pick (e.g. declarations_upload for a manual file push), so usage is implied rather than stated.

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