mfc_ca_getTaxes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that a retrieval occurs. It omits the return format, default active/inactive handling, pagination, and any office or authentication preconditions.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is as concise as the stated purpose allows.

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 should at least indicate what the response contains, but it does not. The one-line description is also insufficient to orient an agent among the many sibling getter 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 input schema covers 100% of the single optional available parameter, including an important caveat that false does not mean 'only inactive.' The description itself adds no parameter meaning, so the coverage-based baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 '税区分を取得します' clearly states a specific verb and resource: retrieving tax classifications. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools, though the resource name is sufficiently distinct from the other getter tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to prefer this tool or how it relates to the many sibling mfc_ca_get* tools. The one-sentence description gives only the most obvious implication and offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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