get_tax_guidance

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says it fetches a provision and mentions identification methods, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the title matches multiple provisions, or that kind and law_name are required. Missing these important behavioral details.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and optional identification methods. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the key usage scenario (fetch by item_id/title) but omits mention of required parameters kind and law_name, and does not describe edge cases or return format. Since the output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the missing required parameter guidance leaves room for error.

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 description coverage is high (80%). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that item_id comes from search results and that title is an alternative when item_id is unknown. It clarifies the relationship between these two parameters, but does not mention revision_year or the required nature of kind/law_name, though the schema covers those.

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 it fetches a single provision from basic rulings or tax law enforcement standards, and it gives two ways to identify the provision (item_id or title). It distinguishes from search_tax_guidance but does not explicitly differentiate from other get/update siblings, so not a 5.

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 instructs to use item_id from search_tax_guidance or a title fragment, implying a typical flow of search-first-then-fetch. It provides clear context for when to use this tool but does not mention when to use alternatives or exclude other tools, so not a 5.

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