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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It honestly discloses that the tool only detects and explains, never files, and mentions confidence tiers and IRS citations. This provides sufficient insight into behavior for a read-only scanning tool.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and packs detailed information. While clear, it could be broken into two sentences for easier parsing, but overall it is efficient and not verbose.

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 14 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks detail on the output format (e.g., how credits are listed, confidence levels) and how parameters are used. The mention of 'confidence-tiered' and 'hand-off' provides some context, but not enough for a complex tool.

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?

With only 14% schema description coverage (2 of 14 parameters described), the description should compensate but does not add meaning for most parameters. It names credits but does not explain how each parameter (e.g., energySpend, childcareCost) maps to detection logic, leaving ambiguity.

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 specifies the exact action: detecting federal tax credits a household likely qualifies for but commonly never claims. It lists specific credits with IRS citations and explicitly distinguishes from filing a return, making the purpose crystal clear.

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 provides clear context for using the tool (detecting unclaimed credits) and explicitly states it never files a return, which guides appropriate use. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools or specify when not to use it, so a slight deduction applies.

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