List Tax Codes

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

While annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them: it explains pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), error status codes (401, 403, 404), and explicitly states 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is verbose, containing several sentences of background about tax codes and default values that are not necessary for invoking the tool. While the core purpose is front-loaded, the extra context dilutes the message and could be trimmed without losing essential invocation guidance.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers return format ('JSON array of tax codes'), pagination, error behavior, required parameters, and API endpoint. For a simple list tool with good annotations, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight extra meaning by clarifying that page and per_page control pagination and that the response reports remaining pages, which goes beyond the schema's simple field descriptions. It also repeats the required company_id, but that's redundant with the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a list of all Tax Codes for a given Company,' which clearly states what the tool does. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by explaining it is for discovery ('Use this to discover tax codes or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it').

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: to discover tax codes or look up an ID before calling another tool. It provides clear context for its role as a precursor to create/update operations, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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