taxme_fill

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses detailed behavior: how different value types are interpreted (text, radio, checkbox), what gets refused (invalid values, disabled fields), and the verification process (read-back and ok:false if mismatch). This is rich behavioral context that goes beyond basic expectations.

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 a single, lengthy run-on sentence that packs in a lot of information but is poorly structured. It could be broken into clearer sentences or bullet points for readability. Every piece of information is relevant, but the format hurts comprehensibility.

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 the complexity of the tool (multi-field form filling with target resolution, value mapping, refusal conditions, and verification), the description covers all major aspects. It does not describe the full reply structure but does mention ok:false. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with no output schema.

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 defines a generic 'values' array with 'target' and 'value', but the description adds crucial semantic meaning: target can be a field id or label/context substring, and value must be text/number/boolean with type-specific handling. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description fully compensates and even exceeds what the schema provides.

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 verb+resource: 'Set fields on the current page.' It is specific enough to distinguish from other tools like taxme_click or taxme_menu, though it does not explicitly name any alternatives. The meaning is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies usage on a page with fields, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or comparison with sibling tools.

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