submit_tax_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that submission may fail with a 403 status if a paid subscription is required, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on other potential outcomes (e.g., success codes, error handling beyond 403), side effects, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured clearly, though the return explanation could be more concise. Every sentence adds value, but minor verbosity in the return statement prevents a perfect 5.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose, parameter semantics, and some behavioral transparency (403 handling). However, as a mutation tool with potential side effects (submitting to a tax authority), it lacks details on success responses, error scenarios beyond 403, and integration context, making it adequate but incomplete.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter 'report_id' by specifying it as a 'Public ID of the tax report to submit'. Since schema description coverage is 0% (schema only provides title 'Report Id' and type), this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's role and format. With 0 parameters beyond this, it meets the baseline of 4.

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 action ('Submit a tax report') and the target ('to the Finanzamt'), which is a specific government tax authority. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tax_report' (retrieval) and 'generate_finanzamt_preview' (preview). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other submission-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a prepared report via 'get_tax_report'), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools. The only implicit context is that a report must exist, but this isn't stated explicitly.

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