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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the specific data sources (SST-02 return figures, consolidated-e-invoice register) and explaining edge cases like registration 'none' meaning no remittance. It does not contradict the annotations and provides meaningful behavioral context beyond safety.

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 well-structured with a colon and numbered items, front-loading the core purpose. It is a single long sentence but each clause carries essential information, and there is no redundant filler. Minor complexity from nested clauses prevents a perfect score.

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 must serve as the primary documentation of return values. It covers both major sections (SST status and e-invoice consolidation) and their key fields, including dates and validation status. It omits minor formatting details but is adequate for a read-only status check.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage (100%). The description focuses on the output rather than parameters, which is appropriate. It explains the meaning of the returned data, which is the relevant semantic content here.

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 identifies a specific resource (tax position) and a specific read action ('one read'), and enumerates the exact components (SST payable and e-invoice consolidation) it returns. This distinguishes it from sibling financial reports like cash_position or business_snapshot, which cover different domains.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention related tools or conditions that would make it the appropriate choice. The phrase 'in one read' implies a quick lookup, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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