Search tax activity codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: each row's full shape, that the ratio fields are profit ratios used in presumptive assessments, and the explicit caveat that they are not tax rates — a meaningful disambiguation an agent could otherwise misread.

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 opening sentence front-loads purpose and Persian aliases, and the second paragraph is mostly load-bearing field enumeration with one useful caveat. The bilingual term pairs add minor length but are justified by the Persian-language query domain.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value meaning, and it does cover every row field plus the crucial 'ratios are not tax rates' clarification. Complete enough to call correctly; only pagination/limit behavior is left entirely to the schema, which handles it.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the commercial 'no both option' nuance and the year default. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage is appropriate.

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 (Find) and resource (tax activity codes) and immediately enumerates what is returned: VAT status, profit ratios, activity type. The Persian aliases (کد فعالیت / اینتاکد) and the named upstream source (tax.gov.ir SearchIntaCode) let an agent distinguish this from tx_goods_search and the other regulation/FAQ siblings without opening any schema.

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 the usage context via 'used for presumptive assessments' and the query-example framing, but it never states when to choose this tool over tx_goods_search or when not to use it. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusion conditions, so the routing signal is only implied.

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