spv_sync_prepare

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (mTLS, not OAuth) and states what the tool returns, implying a read-only prepare operation. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether it marks PDFs as pending), but the provided details are transparent about the core behavior.

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 concise, front-loaded with the step identifier ('Step 1 of an SPV inbox sync'), and packs necessary technical details (mTLS, OAuth rejection, returned content) without unnecessary fluff. It is well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role within the broader SPV workflow, including its output and the next step. It lacks a bit of background on SPVWS2 acronyms, but the sibling tool list and context make it 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?

The schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (days, companyId), so the description adds no additional semantic value. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function as the first step of an SPV inbox sync, returning the ANAF listaMesaje URL and pending PDFs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spv_sync_agent_result (the follow-up step) and other spv_documents_* tools.

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 indicates when to use this tool—as the initial step of a sync—and explicitly names the subsequent tool (spv_sync_agent_result) for relaying the response. It also provides a usage caveat about the OAuth token not being accepted, helping the agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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