mf_accounting_list_taxes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (though 'list' strongly implies it), whether it requires authentication, the scope of results, or any other behavioral trait. It adds nothing beyond the bare possibility of a read operation.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and direct. However, it may be overly terse for a tool in a crowded namespace, trading completeness for brevity.

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 annotations, output schema, and usage guidelines, the description is too sparse to be complete. An agent needs more context to properly invoke this tool, such as authentication requirements, expected return type, or how it relates to sibling tools. The description does not compensate for these gaps.

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 single 'available' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles this adequately.

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 states a specific verb ('一覧を取得する' = list/retrieve) and resource ('税区分' = tax categories). However, it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling list tools (e.g., mf_accounting_list_accounts, mf_accounting_list_sub_accounts), leaving the agent to infer from the name alone. The purpose is clear but minimal.

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 or when not to use this tool, nor are any alternatives mentioned. The description offers no context beyond the bare purpose, which is insufficient for an agent to select this tool over similar list operations.

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