netsuite_get_tax_codes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It reveals that only active codes are returned and lists the fields, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or pagination behavior beyond the schema. The verb 'List' implies safety, but more explicit detail would improve transparency.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence states the action, resource, and return fields. The second adds the active-only behavior, the intended use case, and optional parameters. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return values. It does so by listing the fields returned. It also explains the active-only filter and the intended use case. For a simple list tool with two optional parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (limit with default 50, offset with default 0) at 100% coverage. The description merely repeats 'Optional: limit, offset' without adding semantic value, such as how limit interacts with the active-only filter or how offset pagination behaves. This meets the baseline but adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 NetSuite sales tax items and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, rate, country, isInactive). The resource is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on vendors, bills, and expenses. The verb 'List' unequivocally indicates a read operation.

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 concrete use case: 'use results to populate CLIENT_CONFIG.TAX_CODES by rate.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but no alternative for tax codes exists among siblings, so this is acceptable.

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