odoo_fp_types

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

The description discloses caching behavior (cached vs live) and implies a read-only operation. However, without annotations, it lacks explicit statements about safety (non-destructive), authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The information is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose and add valuable usage advice. Every word serves a purpose, and no unnecessary information is included.

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 output schema, the description usefully lists the four return types and explains caching behavior. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior (live). It lacks details on return structure or error handling, but for a simple 2-param tool with no required fields, it is largely complete.

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 2 parameters with 50% description coverage (live has a description, connection does not). The tool description explains the live parameter further and adds value by listing return types, but does not elaborate on the connection parameter. This provides moderate enhancement beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: getting available selection values for fiscal position configuration. It specifies the return types (move_types, bg_move_types, doc_types, type_vat) and differentiates itself from sibling tools like odoo_fp_configure by indicating it serves as a reference for configuration.

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 clear usage guidance: use as reference when calling odoo_fp_configure, and set live=true for fresh values instead of cached. It implicitly tells when to use the tool (before configuration) but does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or provide alternative tools for similar purposes.

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