get_mva_satser

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses key behavioral details: it returns VAT rates and categories, and does not require authentication. It does not describe output format or potential errors, but for a simple zero-parameter lookup, the disclosure is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose, lists the exact rates, and adds a practical note about authentication. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it fully specifies what is returned (standard and reduced VAT rates with their categories) and the access requirement. No additional context is needed to understand or invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already reflects this with an empty properties object. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description adds context about the returned rates but not parameter semantics, which is appropriate here.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Norwegian VAT rates'), and concrete values (25%, 15%, 12%) with categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skattesatser (general tax rates) and get_mva_koder (VAT codes), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context that this tool is for obtaining Norwegian VAT rates and notes that no authentication is required, which is a useful usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or include exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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