taxme_login

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. It goes beyond a simple statement: it explains the visible window, the up-to-8-minute wait, the post-login status check, the reason for asking the portal, and that nothing is cached. This is rich, honest transparency about the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 concise yet informative. It front-loads the core action, then provides essential caveats in two follow-up sentences. Every sentence adds value: the visible window, the timeout, the meaning of 'ok', and the caching behavior. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, its blocking behavior, expected outcomes ('ok', 'login_required'), and a key nuance about the portal address. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from using or interpreting the tool 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 according to the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it does add contextual meaning about the login flow, which indirectly clarifies what the tool does despite having no inputs.

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 ('Open a visible window for the SwissID/AGOV login') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like taxme_status or taxme_get_fields by focusing on the authentication step. The verb+resource structure is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use (at the start of a session requiring login) and provides critical guidance on interpreting the result ('Only status "ok" means the login went through'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no direct alternative exists among the siblings, and the guidance is sufficient for correct usage.

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