get_tax_years

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool reports coverage, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, note any authentication requirements, or mention side effects. For a tool with no parameters, this is insufficient transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It is efficient and front-loaded, earning a top score.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, with output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main purpose, though it could clarify terms like 'ESTV calculator' or 'covers' for absolute clarity. Overall, it meets the needs for a report tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter-level detail. Since schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), the baseline is 4. The description is adequate; it does not need to elaborate further on parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: reporting which tax years each ESTV calculator covers. It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('tax years each ESTV calculator'), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools that focus on calculations or location.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as 'use this to check available data before running calculations'. This lack of usage direction weakens its utility for an AI agent.

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