declarations_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that validation is a state-transitioning operation (to 'validated' status) and that it generates and checks XML, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it doesn't state side effects beyond the status transition, failure behavior, or whether this is a mutating/write operation requiring caution. For a state-changing tool with zero annotations, more explicit disclosure would strengthen it.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the primary purpose and mechanism; the second states the success outcome. Every word earns its place.

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 meaningful workflow step (validating a draft declaration that transitions status), yet there's no output schema and no annotations. The description mentions the status transition and XML generation, which helps, but it doesn't address what the response contains (errors? XML content?), failure conditions, or the relationship to the broader declaration workflow (prepare vs validate vs submit). Given the tool's complexity within a larger pipeline, slightly more context would improve completeness.

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 the schema already documents both 'id' (Declaration UUID to validate) and 'companyId' (Company UUID overriding env var). The description adds the behavior tied to 'id' (validating the draft) but the companyId override nuance is only in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting and the description adds minimal parameter-specific value.

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 action ('Validate a draft declaration'), the mechanism ('generating and checking the XML output'), and the outcome ('Transitions the declaration to validated status if successful'). This distinguishes it from siblings like declarations_prepare, declarations_submit, and declarations_recalculate, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 it applies to draft declarations (via the word 'draft') and notes the success outcome, but it doesn't explicitly state when this should NOT be used, which siblings to choose instead, or any prerequisites (e.g., that the declaration must be in draft state first). Adequate but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance despite a clear sibling set including declarations_prepare and declarations_submit.

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