Search goods and service IDs

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds substantial operational context: exact source system, ordering of results (active general IDs first), the meaning of `expired: true`, a 15-30 s first-search cold latency, one-hour caching, and the fact that `total` counts all matches rather than returned rows. This is well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into source/persistence, result ordering, latency/caching, and counting semantics. Every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return contents (id, description, vat_percent, type, dates, expired flag) and does so fully, along with timing and caching expectations an agent needs before calling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds interpretive value by explaining that IDs are 13 digits, that general vs specific and domestic vs imported types exist, and that expired IDs cannot be used, which informs the kind and general_only choices.

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 precise verb and resource ('Find e-invoice goods/service IDs and their VAT rate by description or ID'), including the scope of what is returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like tx_regulations_search or tx_activity_codes without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (looking up goods/service IDs by description or 13-digit ID, with kind and general_only narrowing) but never names a when-not condition or an alternative tool. Sibling domains are distinct enough that routing is unambiguous.

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