List Malaysian tax authority releases

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

Annotations already convey that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the description does not need to repeat those facts. It adds value by disclosing what the tool reveals: supported years, forms, versions, statuses, capabilities, and limitations. It does not mention pagination or exact response shape, but that is secondary for a discovery tool.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and ending with the concrete dimensions the agent can discover. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 read-only listing/discovery tool with strong annotations and only one optional audit parameter, the description gives the agent enough context to call it at the right time and understand what can be learned. It does not detail the return structure, but given the explicit list of discovery dimensions, the omission is acceptable.

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 only parameter, audit, is an optional nested object with runId, sequence, and previousEventId, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain this parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance beyond raw field names and JSON structure. Since schema coverage is low and the description fails to compensate, this dimension is poorly served.

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 discovery-oriented verb and names the resource—tax authority releases—and its purpose: to learn supported years, forms, versions, statuses, capabilities, and limitations before selecting a release. It distinguishes itself from fetch-style siblings like get_tax_authority_release by framing this as the pre-selection discovery step, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a clear context for use: call this tool before selecting a release, so the agent can understand available options and constraints. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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