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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that each tax carries its rate, inclusion mode, and store applicability, which is useful output context, but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or authentication needs. Modest value beyond annotations.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering returned fields, followed by a compact API mapping (GET /taxes). Zero filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming three returned fields, but it omits the rest of the tax record shape and any pagination or result-size behavior. For a six-parameter list tool with no output schema, this is only minimally sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema (tax_ids, show_deleted, and the four ISO 8601 time bounds). The description adds no filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource (list taxes) and enumerates what each record carries: rate, INCLUDED vs ADDED price treatment, and applicable stores. No sibling tool lists taxes, so the resource alone differentiates it from the list_categories/list_items family.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the filter parameters (tax_ids, show_deleted, created/updated ranges), but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that it returns the full collection by default, and no alternatives to consider. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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