get_tax_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions retrieving 'details' but doesn't specify format, permissions required, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 extremely concise with only three sentences that each serve a clear purpose: stating the action, explaining the parameter, and indicating the return. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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?

For a single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what 'tax report details' include, whether authentication is needed, or how errors are handled. While adequate for simple retrieval, more completeness would help the agent use it effectively.

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 explicitly documents the single parameter 'report_id' with semantic meaning ('Public ID of the tax report to retrieve'), which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%. It clarifies what the identifier represents, though it doesn't provide format examples or validation rules that would justify a perfect score.

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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'specific tax report', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tax_reports' or 'get_vat_next_report', which would require explicit scope comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tax_reports' for browsing or 'get_vat_next_report' for specific report types. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context from tool names alone.

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