tax_treaty

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, but the description adds operational context the annotations do not: no API key required, a 1-day cache on identical requests, and a warning that article numbering varies per treaty so keyword search is more reliable. These are genuinely useful beyond the structured hints, though it stops short of describing pagination or size limits.

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-loads the purpose, then cleanly labels when-to-use, return shape, and operational notes. Each section is dense and earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 supplies the return shape ({country, effective date, articles with article/title/body, link}), the required parameter, the caching behavior, and the routing alternatives. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real guidance: the keyword-vs-article tradeoff ('조문 번호는 조약마다 다르니 keyword로 찾는 게 정확') tells the agent which optional parameter to prefer, and it notes the country fallback that returns a treaty-party list. That is meaningfully more than the schema alone.

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 ('Read Korea's bilateral tax treaties article by article'), with scope (96 countries, Korean/English). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming law_article for domestic statutes and search_tax_rulings for international-tax interpretation, so an agent can route without opening a 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 '언제' section gives explicit triggering scenarios (non-resident withholding limited rates, permanent establishment, residency determination) and names the exact alternatives for adjacent needs. This is textbook when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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