refinery_get_tax_history

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses a concrete paid-lookup behavior with a $0.25 x402 fee and an environment toggle (REFINERY_ENABLE_X402=false) that changes how payment applies. This is exactly the kind of payment/auth/rate context annotations do not capture, and it does not contradict the idempotentHint=false annotation.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and the payment caveat following immediately. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple one-required-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description plus schema cover the essential calling requirements. The only minor gap is that the conditional payment line is slightly ambiguous about what happens when REFINERY_ENABLE_X402=false, but that does not block correct invocation.

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?

Context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It mentions ZPID in prose but does not explain response_format, its default, or the fact that zpid is required; the schema still carries most of the parameter burden.

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 concrete verb and object: 'Get the tax/assessment history for a property by ZPID,' which clearly identifies the resource and lookup key. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like refinery_get_price_history or refinery_get_schools, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 first sentence implies the intended use: call this when you need tax/assessment history for a given ZPID. The payment note adds a practical condition, but the description does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving selection among tax/price/school siblings to inference.

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