get_tax_years

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. 'Report' implies a read-only operation, and the absence of parameters suggests no side effects, but this is only implied, not explicitly stated. For an introspection tool with no parameters, the behavior is fairly clear, but it does not disclose exactly what 'currently covers' means or whether results vary by location.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and subject. There is no filler or redundant content; every word adds meaning.

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 parameters and an output schema present, the description fully explains what the tool does. The absence of details on return format is acceptable because the output schema is provided. For its simplicity, the description is 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 has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. Per the rubric, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('which tax years each ESTV calculator currently covers'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that deal with calculations, comparisons, or deductions, none of which address tax-year coverage.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since it takes no parameters and is a simple query, the intended use might be obvious, but the description does not explicitly state prerequisites, context, or when it would be preferable to other tools.

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