get_taxtable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses a notable behavioral nuance: refcount counts Entry rows referencing the table '— voided invoices still count.' This is genuinely useful edge-case context beyond the schema. It also clarifies the return includes resolved entry list with account paths.

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 compact—two focused sentences plus a short Args section. It front-loads the core purpose and key return fields. The voided-invoice nuance earns its place. Slightly more structure could separate return details more clearly, but overall it's efficiently written.

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 output schema exists (covering return structure), the description needn't fully enumerate return values, but it does highlight key ones (guid, name, refcount, resolved entries). It handles the refcount nuance not obvious from schema. For a single-parameter getter, this is adequately complete.

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 compensate. It documents the single parameter 'name: Taxtable name.' This is a minimal but adequate explanation for a self-evident parameter name. The name parameter is straightforward, so it doesn't need extensive elaboration; the schema already declares it as required string.

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+resource: 'Get full details for one sales-tax table.' It returns guid, name, refcount, and the resolved entry list. It distinguishes from siblings like list_taxtables (list all), update_taxtable, delete_taxtable, and create_taxtable, though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 usage by being a single-item getter ('for one sales-tax table'), contrasted with the sibling list_taxtables. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. list_taxtables or provide exclusions. The context is reasonably inferable but not stated.

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