get_tax_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful behavior: figures are derived, Quipu has no tax-model endpoints, and the result is an estimate rather than an official return. This enriches the safety profile without contradicting it. Some granular behavior such as rounding or exact date-boundary handling is not disclosed, but the annotation burden is already low.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose and outputs, rationale and alternative, and reliability caveat. It is front-loaded with the actionable 'how to call' information before the background reasoning.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the major returned values and explicitly labeling the result as an estimate. Params are fully covered by the schema, annotations cover safety, and the caveat about tax-model endpoints gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It could be even more complete by noting edge cases or exact date handling, but these are minor.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, including the from/to overriding quarter behavior. The description reinforces this by saying 'year and a quarter (or an explicit date range)' but does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Work out the VAT and IRPF position for a period from the invoices and expenses recorded in Quipu.' It also names the returned components (output VAT, input VAT, balance, withholdings) and explicitly distinguishes itself from listing invoices and adding them by hand, which separates it from sibling list_invoices.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use instruction: 'Use this instead of listing invoices and adding them up by hand.' It also states the input shape ('Give it a year and a quarter, or an explicit date range') and gives a when-not-to-relly scenario: 'Treat the result as an estimate for orientation, not as a filed return.'

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