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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain that the tool supports add/extract modes, how the amount parameter behaves differently in each mode, or what the return value looks like. The description is too shallow to inform the agent about side effects, rounding, or other behavioral nuances.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence. It has no wasted words, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is not structured to front-load key information because it is barely structured at all.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., tax amount, total, or both) and possibly mention the direction modes. The current description only states scope, leaving the agent without enough context to anticipate the tool's full behavior. The presence of sibling calculators makes this gap more significant.

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?

The description adds no parameter-level information. Schema coverage is 67%, with 'state' and 'amount' having descriptions and 'direction' only having an enum without explanation. The description does not compensate for the missing direction semantics, such as explaining how 'add' vs 'extract' affects the calculation, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names.

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 identifies the resource (state sales tax) and the geographic scope (all 50 states and DC), distinguishing it from sibling tools like canadian-sales-tax-calculator and us-sales-tax-nexus-checker. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Calculate', making it a noun phrase rather than a full statement of the tool's action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention US-only applicability explicitly (though implied by the name and 'all 50 states'), nor does it suggest when to use e.g. canadian-sales-tax-calculator instead. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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