stamp_duty_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds domain context (quarterly aggregation, F24 payment codes, statutory deadlines 31/5, 30/9, 30/11, 28/2) but says nothing about permissions, scoping, or output shape beyond what annotations and schema imply.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the resource and output before the deadline and sibling references. The parenthetical F24 codes and date list earn their place by grounding the domain, though the trailing sibling sentence is slightly vague.

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 two-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema report, the description adequately conveys what the report contains (per-document stamp duty and quarterly amount due) and its deadlines. Only the returned structure and quarterly grouping mechanics remain implicit.

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 both year and company_id documented including their defaults, so the schema carries parameter semantics. The description adds no format, range, or defaulting detail for either parameter, making the baseline 3 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 names a specific resource (stamp duty / 'bollo virtuale' on electronic invoices) and the concrete output (documents subject to stamp duty plus amount due per quarter with F24 codes 2521-2524). It partially differentiates from siblings by noting the overlap with tax_deadlines_export and cashflow_forecast, though it never states plainly what the tool returns versus those two.

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 only implied: the mention that this also falls under the deadlines of tax_deadlines_export and cashflow_forecast tells an agent where related data lives but not when to choose this tool over them. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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