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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral details: categories and layouts are named in the requested language, and only countries with published tax rules are returned. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations about the output's language sensitivity and filtering.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the purpose ('The ids the other tools accept') and then enumerates the exact categories of data. There is zero fluff; every phrase earns its place, and the most important context is front-loaded.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter), a complete schema, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to know: what data is returned, how language affects naming, and the filtering rule for countries. Nothing essential 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 description covers the 'language' parameter fully, including the list of supported languages, the default, and its effect on naming. The description restates the language behavior but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With 100% coverage, 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 what the tool returns: template categories, document layouts, languages, and country codes with published tax rules. It explicitly frames these as 'the ids the other tools accept', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_templates or list_guides. The title and description are consistent and 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?

The description provides clear context: this tool supplies reference IDs used by other tools. This implicitly tells an agent to use it when needing valid category, layout, language, or country codes. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it.

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