report_tax_summary

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses the failure mode for non-French companies, which the agent could not otherwise infer. It says nothing about what the report returns, whether it is read-only, or what the error looks like, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 zero filler, and the critical eligibility constraint is placed immediately after the purpose statement where it will be read.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place behavioral context can live; it covers eligibility but not the report's contents, return shape, or required permissions. For a nested-parameter reporting tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about results.

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 reported coverage of 0% reflects the top-level 'params' wrapper, but the nested schema itself documents start_date, end_date, date_macro and accounting_method including the date_macro vs. start_date/end_date exclusivity. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so it neither compensates for nor undermines the nested schema documentation.

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 verb and resource ('Run a Tax Summary report'), which is enough to distinguish it from the many other report_* siblings such as report_trial_balance_fr or report_profit_and_loss. It stops short of stating what the report actually contains, so the resource is identified but not characterized.

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 gives an explicit eligibility constraint — France-based companies only, errors otherwise — which is a genuine when-not-to-use rule an agent can act on. It does not name an alternative report to use for non-French companies, so the routing guidance is incomplete rather than absent.

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