list_taxes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool makes a GET request to '/v1/taxes' and returns a dict with 'total' and 'taxes' array. It lists key fields (id, name, rate, etc.). No destructive or side effects are implied, which is accurate. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 well-structured with distinct sections for purpose, API call, and return structure. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, there is slight redundancy (e.g., '稅率清單' appears twice), and it could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It explains the return structure in detail, listing the fields within each tax object. It also specifies the API endpoint. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The description mentions the API endpoint and return structure, which is sufficient. According to the rubric, 0 parameters receives a baseline score of 4.

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 verb '取得' (get) and resource '稅率清單' (tax rate list). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying it deals with tax rules, and no other sibling tool has a tax-related purpose. The inclusion of examples like '營業稅、消費稅' adds context.

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 provides explicit usage guidance in the '【用途】' section, indicating when to use the tool (for viewing tax rules, confirming settings, financial analysis). However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, which would improve the score. Since there are no other tax-related siblings, the guidance is adequate.

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