Return full detail for a single obligation by id: what it is, who must file, the deadline, the penalty for missing it, and a link to the OFFICIAL government source with a dated 'verified as of'. INFORMATIONAL ONLY — not legal or tax advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Obligation id, e.g. 'fincen-boi', 'irs-5472', 'de-franchise-llc'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the informational nature and that it is not legal advice. Lists specific fields returned: what it is, who must file, deadline, penalty, link to official source with verification date. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden well.
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 core action, followed by a crucial limitation. Every word adds value.
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 tool with no output schema, the description enumerates expected return fields and includes verification status, fully informing the agent of what to expect.
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 describes the id parameter; description adds examples ('fincen-boi', 'irs-5472') and clarifies that it returns full detail for a single obligation, enhancing understanding beyond schema alone.
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?
Clearly states 'Return full detail for a single obligation by id' – specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like list_obligations (returns list) and build_checklist (builds checklist).
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?
Includes explicit caution 'INFORMATIONAL ONLY — not legal or tax advice', setting appropriate usage boundaries. Context suggests use when needing full detail on one obligation vs listing all, but does not name alternatives directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: building a checklist, creating a tracker, getting obligation details, and listing obligations. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: build_checklist, create_deadline_tracker, get_obligation, list_obligations.
Four tools cover the core workflows of discovering, detailing, checklisting, and tracking compliance obligations. The count is well-scoped for the domain.
The tool set covers listing, getting details, building checklists, and creating trackers. A minor gap is the lack of update/delete for the deadline tracker, but the core use case is addressed.