tax_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that these are 'raw' rows and not a VAT return, which is useful domain context, but it also asserts 'No date support' without clarifying it against the date parameters in the schema, leaving behavior ambiguous rather than fully disclosed.

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?

Two terse clauses, front-loaded with the resource identity and followed immediately by the exclusion and the alternative. Zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description covers purpose plus the key alternative. However, the unresolved tension between 'No date support' and the from_date/to_date parameters is a real gap for a tool an agent must call correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for from_date and to_date — yet it says 'No date support,' which directly conflicts with the presence of those two date-named parameters. Rather than explaining whether the dates are ignored, clamped, or unsupported, it leaves the agent with a contradiction it must guess about.

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?

States a specific resource ('Raw /tax-summary-transactions rows') and immediately qualifies scope with '(read-only)'. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not for ('not a VAT return') and the sibling to use instead, so an agent can distinguish it from the ~30 other reporting tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use alternative: 'for dated tax rows use ledger_transactions with tax_only=true.' That is a routing decision with the condition spelled out, which is exactly what this dimension rewards.

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