List sales taxes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds resource-specific behavior (rate as a fraction, full detail returns dated history), but says nothing about pagination, pageSize limits, or what the summary mode clips — gaps an agent may care about.

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, zero filler, with the most consequential clarification (rate format) placed first and the non-default detail mode second. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an 8-parameter read-only list tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the resource-specific quirks well. Remaining omissions (pagination flow, default business scoping) are already handled by the schema, so nothing essential is missing, though a note about large-list paging would strengthen it.

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, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining that detail="full" specifically yields the dated rate history for this resource, which the generic schema text does not convey. Rate-fraction notation also adds interpretive meaning the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List sales taxes") and immediately clarifies the rate representation (0.13 = 13%), which is the key ambiguity for this resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wave_get_sales_tax or wave_list_sales_taxes filters, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description hints that detail="full" is the way to get history, but never says when to prefer that over wave_get_sales_tax or how to combine it with the search/filter parameters. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives.

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