merit_list_taxes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation lists all rates, takes no filters, uses a specific POST endpoint, and returns a defined set of fields with the important note that Id is the TaxId GUID used on invoice rows. This is sufficient for a simple read-only enumeration, though it does not mention auth or rate 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause adds value: scope, filter behavior, endpoint, and return fields. No filler or repetition of the tool name beyond the opening phrase.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, states there are no filters, and documents exactly what the response contains, including the semantic role of Id. An agent can call this tool correctly without further inference.

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 schema is empty, so the baseline is already 4, and the description adds the explicit statement 'No filters'. This confirms the empty parameter list and prevents an agent from inventing filter parameters; it also adds the endpoint context.

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 specific action, 'List all Merit Aktiva tax (VAT) rates', names the endpoint, and lists the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from the many other merit_list_* siblings because it names the exact resource.

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 context: the tool returns all tax rates with no filters, so an agent knows to choose it when it needs the complete VAT rate table. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the zero-parameter scope makes the usage context unambiguous.

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