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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states the operation is READ-ONLY, names the HTTP method (GET), and details the response fields including the status enum values. This gives the agent useful behavioral expectations without requiring it to infer from the schema or 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?

The description is three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the safety-relevant read-only note, the API endpoint, and the return shape. Every sentence earns its place.

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 rich input schema and the absence of an output schema, the description compensates well by specifying the response structure and status values. It also covers the key behavioral concern (read-only) and identifies the endpoint, making it complete for a 13-parameter tool.

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 input schema already has 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for all 13 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual context by mapping 'customer's location' and 'product' to relevant parameters and listing response fields, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('tax rate/amount for a sale'), and identifies the inputs (customer's location and product). It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools, which are create/get/list operations for contacts, invoices, and items.

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 clear context: this tool is for computing tax on a sale based on location and product, and labels it as Quaderno's flagship endpoint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling list contains no competing tax-calculation tool, so the usage context is sufficient.

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