Search Malaysian tax rules

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

Annotations already reveal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so by noting the tool 'Returns official source records with every match', which clarifies result completeness and source authority. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact sentences pack in the action, resource, search dimensions, and return behavior with no filler. The key scoping information is front-loaded and every clause adds value.

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 search tool, the description covers scope, search inputs, and return shape ('official source records with every match'). It lacks explicit guidance on taxYear semantics and the internal audit parameter, but those are partially addressed by schema defaults and the tool's nature. Overall it is adequate for successful invocation without being exhaustive.

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 only 25%, so the description carries significant parameter-documentation responsibility. It enriches the query semantics by mentioning field ID and rule ID, and it covers formType via 'Form BE or Form B', but taxYear and audit are not explained in the description. This is a partial, not complete, compensation for the low 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 opens with a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('cited Form BE or Form B rules'), and enumerates search dimensions ('topic, field ID, rule ID, or TaxBrain category'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_tax_authority_releases or prepare_be_2025_draft.

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 implies when to use the tool by defining it as a search operation, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools, nor does it name alternatives. With siblings like list_tax_authority_releases and get_tax_authority_release, some implicit differentiation exists, but no explicit usage boundary is provided.

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