query_gst_rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only lookup behavior and enumerates the kinds of data returned, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose behavior when no parameters are supplied, whether parameters can be combined, or the shape of the result.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element—lookup, jurisdiction, code types, and sample percentages—earns its place and communicates the tool's purpose efficiently.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must do more work. It captures the core capability but omits interaction semantics such as whether `code` and `search_term` are alternatives, how `type` interacts with them, and what an empty query would return. Adequate for a simple lookup, but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds examples of codes and tax percentages, reinforcing meaning, but does not materially go beyond what the input schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('look up') and a precise resource ('official Indian GST rates, HSN codes, SAC codes, descriptions, and tax percentages'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the accounting/invoice siblings, which are about ledgers, invoices, and financial statements rather than tax lookup.

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 implies this tool should be used when an agent needs Indian GST rate or code information, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives or how to choose between the `code` and `search_term` parameters. Usage context is clear from subject matter but not directly articulated.

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