get_div7a_benchmark_rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses fail-closed behavior, frozen reviewed data, no network access, the UNKNOWN sentinel, and response_detail options. These traits help an agent predict execution context and trust boundaries.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential format guidance and behavior details. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 two-parameter rate lookup, the description is complete: it states the returned value, year format, failure mode, network isolation, and response_detail behavior. Since an output schema exists, detailed return-shape documentation is not required here.

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 must compensate. It explains the required year format with an example (YYYY-YY, e.g., 2026-27) and clarifies the response_detail enum semantics: summary is default, full returns provenance and statutory trace. Both parameters receive meaningful explanation.

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 verb and resource: 'Return the reviewed s 109N(2) rate for a year, or UNKNOWN.' This precisely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ato_benchmarks or list_ato_benchmark_industries by referencing the specific statutory rate.

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 gives clear input-format guidance and behavioral context, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion cases. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with sibling tools.

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