delivery_notes_submit_etransport

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states the asynchronous nature ('Submission is asynchronous — the status will update from uploaded to ok (with UIT) or nok (with error)'), which is valuable behavioral information the agent needs to know. It doesn't state error/retry behavior beyond 'nok (with error)' or auth requirements, but the async flow disclosure is substantive.

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?

Two sentences, dense with necessary information: target system, prerequisites, async behavior, and outcome states. No filler or repetition of schema information. Every clause 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 has only 2 params and good schema coverage, so the description doesn't need to carry much structural load. It explains the workflow context (submission, issued status, e-Transport fields) and the async result states. It could mention retry implications or specific error handling, but for a focused submission tool with good schema support and a clear status progression, the description is reasonably complete.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The uuid parameter is clearly described ('UUID of the issued delivery note'). The description adds value by explaining the preconditions for the uuid-valued note (must be in issued status with e-Transport fields filled). The companyId parameter is self-explanatory in the schema ('overrides configured default'). Baseline 3 applies with full schema coverage, and the description's prerequisite context adds marginal value above that.

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 (submit), resource (issued delivery note), target system (ANAF e-Transport), and purpose (domestic transport declaration TTN). It distinguishes from siblings like delivery_notes_issue, delivery_notes_validate_etransport, and anaf_sync_trigger by specifying this is the submission step specifically.

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 states prerequisites ('delivery note must be in issued status with e-Transport fields filled: vehicle number, route, transport data, line tariff codes and weights'), giving clear context for when the tool is applicable. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the required precondition effectively guides the agent. The mention that submission is asynchronous is also helpful context.

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