fin_annex

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields: tables are returned as HTML table markup specifically to preserve merged cells, and numbered-less annexes must be targeted via keyword instead of annex_no. That is useful operational detail.

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 domain-priority bracket is front-loaded, followed by behavior and then a concrete example. It is appropriately sized with no obvious filler, though the bracketed routing note and the parenthetical example make it slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return shape (a list, or HTML table for extracted annexes) and the two-call pattern, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It leaves minor gaps such as pagination or size limits on large annexes, but is otherwise complete for this read-only tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds the baseline by explaining the interplay between keyword and annex_no (keyword to filter/single out un-numbered annexes, annex_no to extract the table) and by giving a worked law/keyword example, adding workflow meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 concrete verb+resource pair (returns a law's annex/form list, and extracts the table content of a selected annex) and clarifies its financial/tax/accounting specialization. It tells the agent this tool is the priority for tax-rate tables and useful-life tables/forms, but it does not explicitly contrast itself against sibling fin_article, so differentiation from the closest sibling is implied rather than stated.

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?

It gives clear usage context: prioritize this tool for tax/accounting tables and forms, and it spells out a two-step workflow (call with keyword, confirm the number in the list, re-call with annex_no). No explicit when-not or excluded scenarios are provided, keeping it 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.