es_get_tax_ruling

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'full' to indicate completeness, but no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, error cases) is provided. This is adequate given annotation coverage.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and well structured.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present, so return values are already documented. The description sufficiently identifies the input and the nature of the output ('full ruling'). No additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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%, with the parameter description including format examples ('V0001-25' and '0001-03'). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full DGT tax ruling') with the key input ('official number'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'get' tools by specifying DGT tax rulings as opposed to constitutional rulings or TEAC criteria.

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 that the tool requires an official number, which suggests prior search usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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