spv_sync_agent_result

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the tool's behavior: it relays a response, and it states that messages are archived/classified and users are notified. It also reveals that the response lists PDFs to fetch. This goes beyond a simple 'relay' and informs the agent of side effects and expected output structure.

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 a single, dense sentence that packs all necessary information without fluff. It is well-structured with a colon introducing the relay and a comma-separated list for outcomes. Every word contributes to understanding, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's role as a step in a multi-step sync, the description is complete: it explains the step, what the response contains, what has been done (archiving/classification/notification), and what to do next (fetch PDFs and upload). It even names the next tool, making it self-contained for the agent.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the body is the ANAF listaMesaje response and that it lists PDFs, which gives contextual meaning to the 'body' parameter beyond the generic 'Raw response body from ANAF (JSON)'. It also clarifies the 'companyId' as an override, matching the schema description but without redundancy.

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 tool's purpose: to relay the raw ANAF listaMesaje response as step 2 of an SPV inbox sync. It specifies the resource (ANAF response) and the verb (relay), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spv_sync_prepare and spv_document_upload by referencing the specific step and next action.

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 provides explicit usage context: it is step 2 of an SPV sync, and it tells the agent what to do with the response (fetch PDFs and upload via spv_document_upload). It also describes the outcomes (archiving, classification, notifications) and what the response contains, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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