taxme_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and exceeds expectations. It discloses the exact match preference, substring fallback, reporting of the actually pressed button, and the refusal of empty labels with reasoning. This is rich behavioral context beyond the bare minimum.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds necessary details and examples without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value—examples clarify usage, and the empty-label warning prevents misuse. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it behaves in ambiguous cases, and how errors are handled. No relevant aspect is missing, making it fully self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 only provides a 'label' string with no description, so the description fully compensates. It explains that the label is the visible text, gives examples, and details the matching semantics (exact vs substring) and the empty-label edge case, making the parameter meaning unambiguous.

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 action: 'Click a button/link by visible text', which is a specific verb and resource. It provides concrete examples of labels and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like taxme_fill by focusing on clicking existing elements, not filling or navigating.

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 context for when to use the tool (clicking any button/link by visible text) and includes examples of typical labels. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined and easily inferred from the examples and the nature of the action.

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