get_kommune

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that percentages are printed in Danish decimal convention (24.52 = 24,52 %) and that kirkeskat only applies to Folkekirken members, which is genuine domain behavior. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, where the data comes from, or whether all years/municipalities are covered.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the two clarifications that matter most (percentage format, kirkeskat membership caveat). No filler, though the four untranslated Danish tax terms are listed without any gloss for an agent unfamiliar with them.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the domain caveats cover the trickiest interpretation issue. The notable gap is `year`: with two required parameters and no schema documentation, the description should say what years are valid and what happens for an unsupported year.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It does well for `kommune` by giving concrete examples ('Aarhus', 'Lyngby-Taarbæk'), including a hyphenated name. However, `year` is never mentioned at all — no format, no valid range, no indication of which years have data — leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and a precise set of resources (kommuneskat, kirkeskat, skatteloftsnedslag, grundskyldspromille), so an agent knows exactly what data is returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like estimate_salary_tax or get_figures, but the municipal-tax-rate scope is narrow enough to be unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a per-municipality, per-year rate lookup. There is no statement of when to prefer it over estimate_salary_tax or estimate_payslip (e.g. 'use this to obtain rates that feed the estimators'), and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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