get_mva_koder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'valid VAT codes' adds semantic value. However, it does not disclose response format, authentication needs, or any edge cases. For a simple read-only lookup, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of fluff. It effectively states the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.

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 the zero-parameter complexity and no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (a list of valid VAT codes) and the purpose (reporting). No additional clarification seems necessary for such a simple lookup tool, though specifying the source or format could further enhance completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and since there are no parameters to explain, the description need not provide additional parameter semantics.

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's action: 'Get the list of valid VAT codes (MVA-koder)'. The resource is specific ('valid VAT codes' for reporting) and distinguishes this from siblings like get_mva_satser (VAT rates) and validate_mva_melding (validation).

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 phrase 'for reporting' provides clear context for when to use this tool, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. Given the many sibling tools, a brief exclusion (e.g., 'not for VAT rates') would improve to a 5.

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