declarations_sync

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

The description discloses the tool's behavior: it responds with 409 AGENT_REQUIRED due to the mTLS requirement. It also explains the underlying reason (ANAF SPVWS2 accepts only qualified certificates), making the behavior transparent.

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 concise and well-structured, using two sentences to convey the retirement status, the reason, the response, and the alternative tools. There is no unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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 description provides complete context for a deprecated tool: it explains why it's retired, what happens when called, and what to use instead. It also mentions the local storno-agent and the web app interfaces, covering the full picture.

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 description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (year and companyId) beyond the schema descriptions. Since the schema already provides 100% coverage of the parameters with descriptions, the baseline score of 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 that this tool is a retired server-side sync for declarations and SPV messages. It specifies the resource and the verb, and explains that it now returns a 409 error, making its purpose as a deprecated endpoint clear.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it should not be used because it is retired. It names alternative tools (spv_sync_prepare / spv_sync_agent_result) and explains that the functionality is now covered by them, leaving no ambiguity.

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