Get codebook

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: 'VAT rates (current only)' warns that historical rate data is unavailable, and 'your bank accounts' signals the result is scoped to the authenticated company rather than globally enumerated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the enumeration, and the closing sentence earns its place by giving the primary use case. The inline list is dense but maps one-to-one onto the enum and is not redundant padding.

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?

This is a simple read-only lookup with one enum parameter and no output schema, so explaining return shapes is unnecessary. The description covers what the tool retrieves, the scope of results, one important data limitation, and the typical use, leaving no decision an agent must make unaddressed.

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%, but the single parameter is a self-describing nine-value enum, so the schema itself carries most of the semantics. The prose restates those values in the same order ('currencies, countries, VAT rates...') and adds only light clarification of what each yields, with no format or fallback guidance.

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 specific verb+resource ('Get an iDoklad codebook') and enumerates the nine lookup tables it returns, which distinguishes it from the entity-oriented siblings (get_contact, get_issued_invoice, etc.). It stops short of naming an alternative, but the enumerated scope makes the tool's domain unambiguous.

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?

'Use it to translate IDs in documents' supplies a concrete when-to-use context that ties this tool to the ID fields present in the sibling document tools. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives, but the intended role is clear.

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