get_rule_sourceFor a Czech OSVČ tax topic, returns the governing rule with current values, primary-source citations (zákon, ČSSZ, VZP, Finanční správa) with verification dates, and related Freelax articles. Topics: pausalni_dan, identifikovana_osoba, dph_registrace, zalohy, prehledy, penale, danove_pasmo_23, vedlejsi_cinnost.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | ||
| locale | No | en |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds contextual detail about return content (current values, verification dates, source institutions) but does not disclose deeper behaviors like data freshness, error handling, or rate limits.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the topic list is compact. Every sentence is useful.
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 covers purpose, supported topics, and return components (rule, citations, verification dates, articles), which is adequate for a simple lookup without an output schema. However, it lacks details on locale handling and the exact structure or format of the returned citations.
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 has zero description coverage, and the description only restates the topic enum values without explaining their meaning. The locale parameter is not mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no extra semantics beyond the schema.
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 states a specific action ('returns') and resource ('governing rule with primary-source citations, verification dates, and related Freelax articles'), and the topic scope is clear. It distinguishes from sibling calculation tools by emphasizing citations and verification rather than numeric computation.
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 gives context ('For a Czech OSVČ tax topic') and lists supported topics, implying when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_flat_tax_band or check_thresholds, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but calc_set_aside overlaps with compute_year (both compute safe-to-spend) and the flat-tax tools (check_flat_tax_eligibility, get_flat_tax_band, calc_flat_tax_settlement) could be confused without careful reading. Overall, descriptions are detailed enough to resolve ambiguity.
Nearly all tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but 'czech_working_days' is a noun phrase and the verbs vary (calc, compute, check, compare, convert, estimate, get). The use of both 'calc' and 'compute' for calculations is a minor inconsistency, but the pattern is still readable and predictable.
14 tools is well within the ideal range for a complex tax domain. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect (calculations, eligibility, deadlines, penalties, rules, currency, working days) and none seems redundant, making the count appropriate.
The tool surface covers the main OSVČ tax lifecycle: income tax, social/health insurance, flat tax, VAT thresholds, deadlines, penalties, and working days. A notable gap is the absence of a dedicated advance-payment (zálohy) calculation tool, though compute_year and get_rule_source can partially address this.