notify_tax_authority

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

The description discloses a key behavioral requirement (landlord consent) but lacks other behavioral details such as side effects, irreversibility, or response format. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially fulfills it.

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, consisting of two short sentences that directly convey the purpose and a key prerequisite. No redundant information is present.

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?

For a tool with 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain the auth tokens, the meaning of 'time-bounded consent', or what happens on submission, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain each parameter. It only implicitly touches on consent_token via the consent requirement, leaving oauth_token, at_credentials_token, and signed_contract_hash unexplained. This does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Submit a signed lease') and the target resource ('Portuguese Tax and Customs Authority (AT)'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_parties or generate_lease.

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 context by noting the prerequisite of explicit, time-bounded landlord consent, implying when the tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, preventing a higher score.

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