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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world lookup, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: unverified fields come back as null and unsupported state/year combinations return not_covered, which tells the agent how to interpret empty results.

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 purpose and followed by the null/not_covered behavior. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing returned content: conformity status, conformity date, and the plain-language add-back/subtraction. It stops short of describing the actual response shape or how add-back vs subtraction is represented, a minor gap for a two-parameter lookup.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the DC/NYC notes and the note that files are tax-year specific. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the 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?

Names the specific resource (IRC 168(k) bonus depreciation and IRC 179 conformity) and enumerates exactly what is returned: conformity flag, IRC conformity date, and the add-back/subtraction. It is clearly distinct from siblings like salt_cap or ptet_rules, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource (check state-level bonus depreciation treatment for a state/year), and the edge-case note 'Unknown states and years are not_covered' hints at valid input boundaries. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives like coverage or ptet_rules.

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