List tax rates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by scoping the list to the administration's configured VAT rates and explaining their relationship to invoice lines. It does not need to repeat pagination or filter behavior since the schema fully covers those parameters.

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 short sentences with no filler. The purpose is stated first, and the relationship to invoice lines is communicated in a single useful clause. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool, this description is complete for tool selection and invocation: it names the resource, scopes it to the administration, explains the main use case, and the schema covers all parameters. Annotations cover the safety profile, so no further behavioral disclosure is required.

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%, with all four parameters individually described, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds no direct parameter details, but the line about invoice lines referencing tax_rate_id provides indirect context for the filter/tax_rate_type semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List the VAT rates configured for the administration') and adds a clear domain tie-in: invoice lines reference these rates by tax_rate_id. This differentiates it from the many sibling list/get tools, even though tax rates have no direct sibling equivalent.

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 phrase 'Invoice lines reference these by tax_rate_id' tells an agent when this tool is relevant: when resolving or validating tax_rate_id values for invoice-related operations. It does not name an alternative, but no sibling targets tax rates, so an exclusion is not necessary; the administration scoping is also clear.

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