get_revenue_register

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

The read-only and idempotent behavior is already carried by annotations, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: when both parameters are omitted, the tool returns the saved view. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence with the main operation front-loadedcars and no extraneous detail. Every clause contributes to invocation behavior.

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?

Annotations and the presence of an output schema cover safety and return shape, so the description only needs to convey invocation logic. It covers the main period-based call and the saved-view fallback, though 'saved view' and partial-parameter behavior remain implicit.

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?

The description adds semantic structure by linking year and month together and defining the both-omitted fallback. However, with schema description coverage low, it leaves unclear what happens when only one of year/month is provided, and it does not elaborate on individual parameter meaning beyond the schema's basic type constraints.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('ryczałt revenue register'), and it is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as get_vat_register. It also states a second mode ('saved view') without confusing the core purpose.

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?

It gives clear usage context: call with year and month to read that period, or with both omitted to get the saved view. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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