vat_rates_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what's returned (percentage, label, e-Factura category, default flag) and the sort order, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention read-only semantics explicitly, authorization requirements, or pagination behavior. For a read-only list tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose first and adding contextual examples. Every sentence earns its place — the first states purpose+scope+sort, the second lists return fields plus practical Romanian rate context. No waste or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple list tool with 1 parameter and no output schema. The description names the return fields which partially compensates for the missing output schema. For a low-complexity tool, this level of description is reasonably complete, though a note on pagination or the read-only nature would push it to 5.

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% (companyId is fully described in the schema as 'Company UUID override uses active company if not set'), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the 'active company' default behavior consistent with the schema, but doesn't add much beyond it. The single parameter is both in schema and described well.

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?

The description clearly states the verb+resource ('List all VAT rates configured for the active company') and specifies the sort order and return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vat_rates_create/update/delete by being a list operation, and the scope ('active company') is explicit.

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 clearly sets context: it operates on the active company by default, and mentions the companyId override. It provides useful contextual examples (common Romanian rates) that help an agent understand when this is relevant. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it vs alternatives, but the scope is clear enough.

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