teamleader_list_tax_rates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds the purpose of finding tax_rate_id, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor disclose any potential side effects, permissions, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already covers. For a simple list tool, the description is adequate but leaves room for clearer behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes the purpose and optional filter. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler. It is succinct and well-structured.

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 simple list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: what it lists, why to use it, and an optional filter. It does not describe the response format (field names for tax_rate_id or other data), but the purpose statement implies the presence of tax_rate_id. The lack of output schema is partially mitigated by the stated use case. Overall, it is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (page, page_size, department_id) having a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond repeating that department filtering is optional. It does not clarify the source of department_id (e.g., from teamleader_list_departments), but the schema already defines the filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 clearly states the tool lists available tax rates and explicitly ties it to finding tax_rate_id for invoice and quotation line items. It uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('tax rates'), and is easily distinguished from the many sibling list tools by its unique resource type.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use to find tax_rate_id for invoice and quotation line items.' This gives context on when to call the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but given the tool's specific resource, differentiation is implicit. The optional department filter is also mentioned.

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