list_deductions_estv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (though 'List' implies it), what side effects exist, what the output contains, or any rate limits. The one-line text provides essentially no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 one short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It omits essential information and does not front-load key constraints or outputs. It reads as a placeholder, not a useful guide.

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 tool's complexity (14 parameters, 5 enums, no output schema explanation) and the presence of sibling tools with similar purposes, this description is woefully incomplete. An agent cannot determine correct usage, expected results, or why to pick this over alternatives without external context.

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 0% and the description mentions zero parameters. With 14 parameters (including required ones like location and income1), the description adds no meaning to any parameter, leaving agents to guess from property names alone. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('ESTV deduction sheet'), and a scope ('for a household'), and adds a hint about passing IDs to simulate. This distinguishes it from entirely unrelated tools but does not differentiate from siblings like list_tax_returns or simulate, which are closer in function.

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 signal is 'ids to pass to simulate', which implies this tool is a precursor to simulation but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. No guidance on prerequisites or scenarios.

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