taxme_account_statement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so exceptionally well. It explains critical edge cases: amounts are only reported under the year the statement assigns, and if none can be assigned, the status is 'unparsable' rather than an empty list. It also clarifies that non-statement pages (maintenance, error) are 'unparsable', preventing misleading empty-list interpretations.

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 three sentences, with the first stating purpose and the next two providing essential edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary. The information is front-loaded and no unrelated details are 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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It defines the primary output (tax amounts per year), the meaning of 'unparsable' status, and the distinction between empty list and unparsable. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly interpret results, especially given the lack of structured output annotations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty input schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'Open tax amounts (CHF) per tax year.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like listing returns or getting fields. The subsequent sentences further clarify scope by describing how amounts are attributed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusion conditions, or prerequisites. The only implied usage is 'when you need tax amounts per year,' which is tautological and not helpful for tool selection.

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