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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the semantic nature of the returned value (annual, non-taxable, tied to a status code), which is useful context, but says nothing about read-only behavior, error handling for an out-of-pattern status, or currency/units of the figure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource is named first and the qualifying status examples follow immediately.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the essentials but omits the currency/units of the returned amount and any indication of response shape. Adequate for invocation, thin on context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries a description and a regex pattern. The description goes beyond that by giving concrete example values (TK/0, K/1), which makes the otherwise cryptic pattern easier to apply correctly.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: annual non-taxable income (PTKP) keyed by taxpayer status, with concrete examples (TK/0, K/1). The verb is only implied by the name, and it does not distinguish itself from other tax-related siblings like get_pph21_ter or get_tax_rates, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_tax_rates or get_pph21_ter, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tax lookup. The example status codes hint at valid input but not at when this tool is the right choice.

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