beel_get_tax_configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond these: it clarifies that the tax type catalogue is not company data and lives outside this resource, preventing confused assumptions. No contradiction with annotations; it complements them.

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 concise and front-loaded with the return value. Two short paragraphs plus an endpoint line contain only relevant information. The note about the external catalogue is useful and placed logically. No filler or redundant statements; the endpoint line is mildly redundant but harmless.

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 low complexity (one parameter, read-only operation), the description is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns. The output is described (tax regime, percentage, key, IRPF, surcharge). Error behavior is covered in the schema parameter description. The only minor gap is the absence of a formal output schema, but the description suffices.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the company_id parameter is documented thoroughly in the schema (including NIF derivation, 403 behavior, and the irrelevance of the BeeL-Active-Company header). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 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 states exactly what the tool returns: the default tax regime with main percentage and regime key, plus IRPF and equivalence surcharge settings. The verb 'Returns' is specific and the resource is clearly 'tax configuration of a company (NIF)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_verifactu_configuration and update_tax_configuration.

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 implies usage (to fetch tax configuration) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. An agent can infer its purpose, but there is no direct guidance on when to prefer this over get_verifactu_configuration or when to use update_tax_configuration instead. No explicit exclusions are given.

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