call_taxlaw_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only labels the call as 'raw' without explaining side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.

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 concise (two sentences), with the main purpose stated upfront. It avoids fluff and each sentence contributes useful contextual information about parameter sourcing.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's low-level nature, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the response contains, how to interpret results, or any constraints on usage. More context is needed for effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by hinting at the source of actionId, but does not deepen understanding of parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 it is a raw call to action.do of the tax law system, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are more specific (get, search, list), by being a lower-level 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 provides guidance on where to obtain valid actionId values (from list_taxlaw_site_menus or browser), implying when to use this tool (for arbitrary action.do calls). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives.

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