List tax rates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned records and the cross-entity meaning of the numeric code (what a receipt line's tax list points at), which no annotation conveys. It stops short of noting ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior, so it is not a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the returned field set. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the empty schema or the annotations, and the receipt-line note is a compact cross-reference rather than filler.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so field by field. It could be slightly more complete by indicating whether the list is exhaustive or how it is ordered, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing in the schema for the description to compensate for. The fields it lists are output attributes rather than inputs, which is the right thing to document here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists the tax rates configured for the organization") and enumerates the exact fields returned, including the numeric code, symbol, label, rate, extra rate, and price-inclusion flag. No sibling in the provided set (receipts, orders, registers, shifts, reports) overlaps with tax-rate configuration, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the lookup for tax-rate definitions, reinforced by the note that receipt lines refer to the numeric code. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite mention, and with zero parameters there are no filtering alternatives to distinguish from.

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