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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output format (one-line verdict + link) and stating input constraints (numbers and enums). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and output, with a concise constraint. Every sentence is necessary and no waste.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the comparison logic and result format. It mentions lost credits and the link, which are important context. Minor lack of detail on the verdict format is acceptable.

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 coverage is 71% with descriptions for most parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema; the statement 'Accepts only numbers and enums' is slightly misleading as there are boolean and object parameters. Overall, parameter meaning is adequately covered by the schema.

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 the tool compares Married Filing Jointly vs Separately and returns which keeps more, with specifics like lost credits and a one-line verdict plus link. It is distinct from sibling tools which cover other financial comparisons.

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 implies use for choosing filing status but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are mentioned.

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