list_tax_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a list of company tax settings, which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or data format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent about its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The second sentence adds return value information, which is useful. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for a perfect 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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output structure. For a read-only list tool, this is acceptable but leaves gaps that could hinder optimal agent 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not add parameter information beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4. It effectively communicates that no inputs are required, which is appropriate.

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: 'Get list of tax settings for the current company.' It specifies the verb ('Get list'), resource ('tax settings'), and scope ('for the current company'), which is straightforward. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_tax_statistics' or 'update_tax_setting', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 when it is appropriate (e.g., for viewing all tax settings) or when not to use it (e.g., compared to 'get_tax_report' or 'update_tax_setting'), nor does it reference any sibling tools. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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