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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'current year' as a scope constraint, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about whether prior-year values are retrievable, update cadence, or value currency.

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 tightly packed sentence with the scope front-loaded and the topic exception placed last where it belongs. The semicolon-separated list is dense but every item is a concrete content claim rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, the sole parameter is optional with full schema coverage, and the description's content inventory tells an agent exactly what domain of statutory values to expect. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining what the 'local-tax' enum value actually returns (upper limits of local property tax rates), which the schema's bare 'Default limits.' does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource framing ('Statutory values for the current year') and then enumerates the exact contents (IKE/IKZE limits, PIT thresholds and rates, tax-free amount, capital gains, rental flat-rate, minimum wage). This lets an agent distinguish it from get_legal_changes, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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 rather than stated: the tool is the reference table for this year's statutory values. The description does route the agent for the 'local-tax' topic ('gives the upper limits of local property tax rates'), but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison against get_legal_changes and get_macro_indicator.

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