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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description doesn't need to restate it. What the description adds is statutory grounding (OBBBA amounts, Rev. Rul. 2023-2, Sec. 675(4)(C) swap powers), but it says nothing about assumptions, projected-growth modeling over horizonYears, or the epistemic status of the 2027 projection.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence whose first clause is the usage trigger, with each subsequent clause earning its place as a distinct trigger. It is dense and slightly overstuffed with statutory citations, but no sentence is wasted or redundant.

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?

Seven parameters with full schema coverage and a safety annotation profile are handled, but there is no output schema and the description never says what the analysis produces — a tax liability comparison, a step-up benefit estimate, a recommendation, or just numbers. For a multi-scenario calculator, an agent cannot predict the shape or scope of the result.

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 100%, including enum labels and default values, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description supplies domain framing for those inputs (exemption year amounts, gift-vs-hold semantics) but adds no per-parameter detail such as how assetCostBasis interacts with appreciatedAssetValue or what horizonYears does to the projection. Baseline 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?

States a specific analytic job — comparing Sec. 1014 step-up in basis against Sec. 1015 carryover basis for lifetime gifting, plus federal/state estate tax exposure — with the governing statutes named. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like calculate_roth_conversion or compare_sbloc_borrow_vs_sell, which are unrelated domains.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'use this tool whenever...' trigger list covering estate tax questions, gift-vs-hold decisions, SLAT/grantor trust questions, and state cliff states, which gives strong when-to-use context. It never states when NOT to use it or names a sibling to defer to for adjacent questions such as exemption parameter lookups (get_irs_statutory_parameters).

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