get_declaration

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: output format varies by declaration type, and correction supersession is an unresolved data-quality issue. This is valuable context that the agent cannot derive from annotations or the input schema.

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 compact: three sentences, each adding distinct information (purpose, output variants, caveat). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids filler, though the third sentence is terse enough that its practical implication could be clearer.

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 rich annotations, a described output schema, and a single fully documented parameter, the description covers the essential behavioral variations and a key caveat. It is complete enough for correct invocation; only an explicit tie to list_declarations or correction-handling policy is missing.

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 provides 100% coverage with a clear description of declaration_id as an opaque ID from a previously returned record/link. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already carries the full burden, so the baseline 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 verb and resource: 'Read a declaration dialog' and elaborates on the two possible result shapes (JPK XML tree vs. PIT calculation tables). It is distinct from sibling list/get tools, though the term 'dialog' is somewhat domain-specific and not fully clarified.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_declarations or the other get_* tools. The advice to 'Inspect the document's actual period and version' is a post-call caution, not a usage-selection rule, and 'Correction supersession is unresolved' does not explain whether this tool should or should not be used for corrected declarations.

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