Search tax regulations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the description correctly spends its budget elsewhere: it names the upstream source, the ordering guarantee, and decodes the status field (معتبر = in force). It stops short of pagination limits or rate limits, but adds real operational context.

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 purpose and scope, then source and item shape in a compact second paragraph. No filler sentences, though the parenthetical script name and source URL are marginally redundant with each other.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields of each result (id, type, title, number, issuer, date, status) and their semantics. An agent can chain into tx_regulation_text without guessing what comes back.

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% and each of the four parameters already carries a description with examples and enum decoding, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's note about id/type refers to result fields rather than inputs, adding little parameter meaning beyond the baseline.

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 and resource (search the official tax regulation database), enumerates the covered document kinds (laws, circulars, rulings, opinions), and specifies result ordering (newest first). The mention of passing id+type to tx_regulation_text separates it from that sibling without needing the 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 retrieval workflow by noting that each result's id and type should be passed to tx_regulation_text, which tells the agent this is the discovery step. However, it never states when to prefer it over unmentioned siblings like tx_faq_search or tx_goods_search, so differentiation is only partial.

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