get_trinnskatt_satser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds that no authentication is required and that data is returned for each bracket, which is useful for a public read operation. However, it does not describe the response format, any rate limits, or whether the data reflects the current year, which prevents a perfect score.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does and adds an accessibility note. No unnecessary words or repetition; every phrase earns its place.

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 zero-parameter public lookup, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned (rates and thresholds), the scope (each bracket), and authentication requirements. It would be slightly more complete if it mentioned whether the rates are for the current tax year or if any versioning exists, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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 0 parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than nonexistent parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clearly defined resource: 'trinnskatt (bracket/step tax) rates and income thresholds for each bracket.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skattesatser or get_mva_satser by naming the exact tax type and data returned.

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 only usage guidance is 'No authentication required,' which clarifies accessibility but does not provide explicit direction on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Among many sibling tax-rate tools, the description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the usage context implied by the tool name.

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