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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it returns the cap and steps rather than the deduction, marks pre-2018 years as not_covered, and clarifies that MAGI is used in computation but not written to the usage log.

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 front-loaded with the core computation purpose and then layers in only essential clarifications about output, unsupported years, and logging. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of schema or annotations.

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 three-parameter computation tool with rich schema descriptions and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete. It states what is returned and clarifies the non-deduction output and unsupported years, though it could say more about output format or error behavior.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that pre-2018 tax years are not_covered, extending the schema's note on year behavior, and by explaining that MAGI is used for computation but not logged.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compute the federal SALT deduction cap, citing the governing statute and required inputs. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like bonus_conformity and ptet_rules, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against those alternatives.

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 when to use the tool by specifying the required inputs and noting that years before 2018 are not_covered. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or provide broader usage context beyond the unsupported-year exclusion.

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