trybiut_tax_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and user scoping, which is useful context. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe the return shape, but for a simple history query those are largely implied.

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 core purpose is stated first, followed by the access requirement. Every word contributes.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the necessary details: what the tool returns conceptually and that authentication is required. It could add an explicit note about being read-only or listing, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, no compensation is required, so this is not a weakness.

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 identifies the resource ('filed tax forms history') and the scope ('of the logged-in user'), which distinguishes it from siblings like tax_preview or tax_calculate. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', making it slightly less direct than a fully specified tool definition.

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?

It provides a prerequisite ('Requires login') and clarifies the data is scoped to the logged-in user, which tells the agent when it is appropriate. But it does not contrast with sibling tools or state when to choose this over tax_preview or tax_calculate, so the guidance is only partial.

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