generate_finanzamt_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors: generating a PDF preview, including a file path link, and advising user confirmation before submission. However, it misses critical details like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, error handling, or any side effects (e.g., if it creates temporary files). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational impact.

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 poorly structured and verbose, mixing usage instructions, implementation details, and behavioral notes in a disorganized way. Sentences like 'Always suggest to check the preview...' and 'You could add short summary...' are prescriptive and clutter the core purpose. It's front-loaded with the main action but loses focus with tangential guidance, reducing clarity and efficiency.

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 complexity of generating a tax report preview with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions a PDF output and link but lacks details on return format, error cases, or dependencies. The references to other tools (@get_tax_report, @submit_tax_report) hint at a workflow but don't fully explain integration or prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it defines 'report_id' as the 'Public ID of the tax report,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with schema description coverage at 0% and only one parameter, this provides basic but insufficient detail (e.g., format examples or constraints). The baseline is 4 for zero parameters, but here the single parameter's description is too vague to fully compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Generate a test Finanzamt preview for a tax report.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('test Finanzamt preview'), and target ('tax report'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit_tax_report' or 'get_tax_report' beyond implied usage context.

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 when to use this tool by referencing other tools (e.g., 'Get the report data from @get_tax_report' and 'Ask follow up question to file the tax report to the Finanzamt @submit_tax_report'), suggesting it's part of a workflow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites, leaving usage context somewhat inferred rather than clearly stated.

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