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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is met there; the description goes further by disclosing exactly which Form 8824 lines are produced (15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 24, conditional on 23==20) and that line 21 recapture is NOT computed, plus the non-authoritative nature of the output.

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?

Delivered as two front-loaded sentences that lead with what the tool produces and close with the scope disclaimer. The Form-8824 line jargon is dense but every clause carries information rather than filler.

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 usefully characterizes the return (partial, specific lines, excluded recapture), which is real value. However, it leaves the 11 input parameters essentially unexplained, and for a multi-field tax calculator that is a material gap.

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 only 9% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden here and adds nothing about any input field. Domain-familiar names like adjustedBasis and debtRelieved help slightly, but no format, units, or meaning is explained, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific resource (1031 exchange / Form 8824 illustration) with an implicit 'illustrate' verb, and the 'partial illustration' framing clearly separates it from the calculate_* siblings. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the domain scope is unambiguous.

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 only guidance is a disclaimer ('planning illustration, not a filed return and not tax advice'), which is a legal caveat rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions under which an agent should prefer this over the calculate_* tools.

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