spv_request_agent_result

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the responsibility for disclosing effects. It states that the tool records the ANAF request id or error on the request, which is a meaningful side effect, though it does not mention idempotency, validation behavior, or potential side effects beyond recording.

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, direct, and free of unnecessary detail. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and core behavior.

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 gives a reasonable overview but omits details such as the meaning of statusCode, expected return behavior, and explicit sequencing relative to spv_request_prepare and later steps. It is adequate for a simple relay step but has clear contextual gaps.

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?

Three of four parameters have descriptive text that adds context beyond the schema, especially requestId's relation to spv_request_prepare and companyId's environment override. The statusCode parameter lacks any description, which is a minor gap but leaves its meaning mostly implicit.

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 identifies the tool as Step 2 of an SPV request and states its main action: relaying the ANAF answer and recording the request id or error. It is distinguishable from similar agent-result tools by focusing on SPV requests, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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' phrasing and the requestId parameter description ('from spv_request_prepare') imply when the tool should be used, but the description does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives or provide a clear usage scenario.

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