declarations_sync

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

Discloses behavior beyond the annotations: the reason for retirement (SPVWS2 requires a qualified certificate over mTLS, which the server cannot supply), the concrete failure mode (409 AGENT_REQUIRED), and the replacement path. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are now stale and give no hint of this, so the description carries the needed load well.

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 tight sentences, retired status front-loaded before the explanation and the redirect. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing routing information.

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 deprecated two-parameter endpoint with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: why it fails, what it returns, and exactly which tools replace it. A caller cannot misuse it after reading this.

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% (year and companyId are fully documented inline), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters, though in fairness they are moot for a retired endpoint that always returns 409.

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?

Opens with 'RETIRED server-side sync' and names the exact resource (declarations and SPV messages), then states the current observable behavior: HTTP 409 AGENT_REQUIRED. An agent can tell instantly that this tool no longer performs the action its name implies, which no sibling name would reveal.

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?

Explicitly redirects: pull via the local storno-agent from the web app, and use spv_sync_prepare / spv_sync_agent_result for automation. That is a direct when-not-to-use plus named alternatives, the strongest form of routing guidance.

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