m3_vat_classifications

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a useful safety disclosure in the absence of annotations. It does not address pagination behavior, default limits, or response characteristics, but the simple read-only nature is at least disclosed.

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 short sentences with no redundant information. The action is front-loaded, and the read-only caveat 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 simple list operation, the description covers the core purpose and safety profile. However, it leaves ambiguity about what the returned classifications look like and how this differs from m3_vat_purposes, which limits completeness for an agent choosing among many sibling tools.

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 description adds no meaning about skip, take, order, or where parameters. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the undocumented pagination parameters or clarify the GraphQL clauses beyond what the schema already says.

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 a clear verb ('List') and names a specific resource ('VAT classifications'), with the DPH acronym adding domain context. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like m3_vat_purposes, so it falls short of the top score.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when you need to list VAT classifications. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over m3_vat_purposes or m3_graphql, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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