spv_request_agent_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it records the ANAF request id or error, but does not explain retry behavior, required permissions, or what happens if the same response is relayed twice.

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, front-loaded with the step number, with no redundant filler. It is appropriately sized for a step-2 relay tool.

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 step context and body shape are useful, but the description does not explain the required statusCode parameter or make the handoff from spv_request_prepare explicit. Given that annotations cover the safety profile and schema covers most parameters, the remaining gap is moderate.

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 75%, with requestId, body, and companyId already documented in the schema. The description meaningfully extends body semantics by specifying the expected payload shapes ({id_solicitare, titlu} or {eroare}), though statusCode remains undocumented.

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 action and resource: relay the raw ANAF answer and record the ANAF request id or error on the request. The 'Step 2' framing distinguishes it from the prepare step, although it does not explicitly name the sibling tool.

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 'Step 2' framing implies it should be called after a prepare step with a raw ANAF response. However, the description gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and does not name alternatives such as spv_request_prepare or spv_request_delete.

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