declarations_sync

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses the async 202 behavior and outlines the actions performed (creates records, downloads, updates statuses), which is good. However, it doesn't mention authorization requirements, rate limits, failure modes, or whether the operation is destructive/reversible — significant gaps for a tool that creates records and mutates statuses.

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 a tight three-sentence block — the first states the purpose and scope, the second outlines the concrete steps performed, the third relays the async response. Each sentence earns its place, though the phrase 'downloads recipise' appears to be a typo for 'recipise' (likely 'receipts'), which slightly detracts.

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?

The tool performs a complex multi-step mutation (create records, download, update statuses) with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is only 3 sentences. It doesn't explain prerequisites (ANAF token/auth), what happens on partial failures, idempotency of re-running sync for the same year, or the meaning of the 202 response beyond 'async processing'. For the complexity involved, more detail is warranted.

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%, so the schema already describes both parameters (year with example, companyId as company UUID). The description adds 'overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var' context implicitly but the schema already captures this. The description doesn't add much beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (sync), resource (declarations from ANAF), and scope (for a given year). It outlines the multi-step behavior: discovers filed declarations via SPV messages, creates missing local records, downloads recipise, and updates in-flight statuses. While it clearly distinguishes from the generic declarations_* tools, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like anaf_sync_trigger to differentiate the scope.

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 usage context (syncing declarations from ANAF for a year) and notes the async return (202), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like anaf_sync_trigger or declarations_refresh_statuses. Given sibling tools with overlapping ANAF sync and declaration status concepts exist, explicit exclusions or alternative guidance would be valuable.

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