delivery_notes_submit_etransport

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false and destructive=false; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that submission is asynchronous and that status moves from 'uploaded' to 'ok' (with UIT) or 'nok' (with error). It does not warn that resubmitting a non-idempotent call may create duplicate declarations, which would have been the one bit of missing behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and target system, then prerequisites, then outcome. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and the async outcome states an agent needs to interpret results. It could close the loop by pointing to how to poll the resulting status (e.g. delivery_notes_get) or roughly how long the transition takes, but what is present is nearly sufficient.

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% for both parameters, so 'uuid' and 'companyId' semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or fallback guidance for either parameter — it only describes the state of the object being submitted. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit an issued delivery note to Romania's ANAF e-Transport system') and names the declaration type (TTN), which clearly separates it from generic delivery-note CRUD. However, it never names the closest sibling, delivery_notes_validate_etransport, so the agent gets no explicit differentiation cue between validating and submitting.

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 preconditions are spelled out concretely: the note must be in issued status and the e-Transport fields (vehicle number, route, transport data, line tariff codes, weights) must be filled. That tells the agent exactly what state to establish before calling. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. run delivery_notes_validate_etransport first) or stating when not to submit.

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