List Tax Types

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds behavioral details: pagination support, response format (JSON array with metadata), required parameter (company_id), and the API endpoint. This complements annotations well without contradiction.

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 moderately lengthy due to a helpful explanation of Tax Types, but it is well-structured: starting with purpose, then domain context, then usage instructions. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded. Could be slightly shorter but maintains clarity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('paginated JSON array of Tax records') and mentions pagination metadata. It also provides the API identifier and endpoint. For a list tool with clear annotations and siblings for CRUD, this description is complete and leaves no gaps.

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 description does not need to re-document parameters. However, it adds context by explaining how pagination works ('Use page and per_page to control pagination; the response includes pagination metadata') and emphasizing that company_id is required. This provides meaningful guidance beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool returns a list of Tax Types for a given company, defines what a Tax Type is with examples, and specifies use cases like paginated overview, ID lookup, and filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_tax_type or delete_tax_type by focusing on listing.

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: 'Use this to enumerate Tax records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, which is acceptable for a straightforward list operation.

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