Search the tax FAQ

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (question titles plus page URLs) and the two-step workflow needed to actually read an answer, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return shape. The 'Source: tax.gov.ir SearchFAQ' line is marginally redundant provenance but is brief and identifies the backing endpoint; nothing else is wasted.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing returns (titles and URLs) and the follow-up step. Minor gaps remain — no mention of result count limits, pagination, or empty-result behavior — but for a one-parameter lookup tool it is close to sufficient.

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% and the single 'query' parameter already documents its Persian-language expectation, example, and minLength. The description adds nothing about query syntax, language, or matching behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) and resource (tax administration's official FAQ), plus what comes back ('matching questions with links'). The 'FAQ' resource distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like tx_regulations_search and tx_goods_search, but the description never names or contrasts those alternatives, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The closing note 'open the url for the answer' does imply this is a first-step index lookup rather than an answer source, which is a useful implicit usage signal, but the agent must infer the routing decision itself.

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