get_skattesatser

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the data source (skatteetaten.no) and that no authentication is required. However, it does not clarify whether the data is fetched live or cached, nor does it describe the response format (e.g., list vs. object, key-value pairs). These missing details are notable for an agent trying to anticipate behavior.

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 exactly two sentences, with the main action and resource first, supported by a clear scope. Every clause adds value: the source, the covered tax types, and the authentication status. There is 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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool, so the description does not need to explain complex parameters. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the returned data looks like (e.g., whether it returns a single object with multiple rates or an array). Given the lack of return type information, the description is not fully complete, but it covers the essential functional aspects.

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 is empty with 100% schema coverage. The description therefore does not need to explain any parameter syntax or defaults. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource ('Norwegian tax rates from skatteetaten.no'). It lists the covered categories (income tax, bracket tax, social security), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_trinnskatt_satser or get_trygdeavgift which focus on individual categories.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need current Norwegian tax rates across multiple categories. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined. The statement 'No authentication required' gives practical usage guidance without needing to consult other tools.

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