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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's marginal burden is lower. It adds useful scope ('where the account is registered to collect tax'), the returned field set, and the backing endpoint, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size for accounts with many jurisdictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the endpoint reference trailing as supporting detail. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and clarifying the registration scope. Only the absence of any volume/pagination note keeps it from being fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate – baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical field list describes the response shape rather than inputs, which is accurate but not parameter semantics.

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 and resource ('List the tax jurisdictions') and scopes it precisely to jurisdictions 'where the account is registered to collect tax', which distinguishes it conceptually from quaderno_list_tax_codes. It does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, but the resource definition 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'list' – an agent can infer this is the read path for jurisdiction data, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over quaderno_list_tax_codes or quaderno_calculate_tax, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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