Get Vat Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as aggregation details, return format, or pagination. It is consistent with annotations but does not enhance transparency beyond them.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that conveys the core purpose with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description leaves ambiguity about what the VAT summary includes and how it relates to other VAT-related tools in the sibling list. With no output schema and many similar tools, an agent may not have enough information to select this tool confidently. The description is minimal and does not clarify the scope of the summary or distinguish it from alternatives.

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 input schema fully describes the single 'quarter' parameter with an example ("Q1 2025"), giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('VAT summary'), and a scope ('for a quarter'). It is unambiguous about the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_vat_periods or get_hmrc_vat_payments, which also deal with VAT data.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the tool name alone.

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