tax_remittance

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. 'Remit tax' implies a financial mutation with side effects, but the description does not disclose whether the operation is asynchronous (despite a resultUrl parameter), what callbacks are expected, how funds are deducted, or any reversal/cancellation behavior. For a money-movement tool, this is a significant gap.

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 single sentence is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff. However, it is extremely terse for a five-parameter financial tool, and could include additional needed context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 financial nature, five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely under-developed. It lacks behavioral details, error semantics, callback information, and parameter explanations, making it insufficient for confident invocation.

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 coverage is only 40%, with descriptions for amount and paymentRegistrationNumber only. The tool description merely mentions the PRN, duplicating the schema without adding meaning for parameters like resultUrl, shortCode, or remarks. The agent is left without guidance for three of five parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remit' and names the resource 'tax to the Kenya Revenue Authority', with the mechanism 'using a Payment Registration Number' clearly distinguishing it from generic payment tools like b2c_payment or stk_push. This is a specific verb+resource+scope formulation.

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 implies the tool is for KRA tax remittance, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings (e.g., b2c_payment, b2b_payment) or provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but alternative guidance is absent.

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