sepp_72t_lock_in_endThe date a 72(t) series may be changed without the recapture penalty: the later of five years from the first payment and the owner reaching 59 1/2, computed in calendar months the way the IRS does (six months after the 59th birthday, not 0.5 years).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| birth_date | Yes | Owner's birth date, YYYY-MM-DD. | |
| first_payment_date | Yes | Date of the first distribution, YYYY-MM-DD. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful computational nuance beyond that: the rule is the later of five years from first payment and reaching 59 1/2, with calendar-month conventions explicitly noted (six months after the 59th birthday, not 0.5 years). This informs the agent of a non-obvious IRS calculation detail.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose before stating the calculation rule. Every element contributes to understanding the computation, with no filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter, read-only calculation tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the inputs and the rule, and the title plus description make the return value (a date) clear. It could explicitly state the output format, but the inference is strong and no nested structures or edge cases are required.
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 100% and both parameters are described. The description adds value by showing how each parameter is used in the calculation: birth_date determines the 59 1/2 threshold and first_payment_date starts the five-year period, mapping the parameters into the rule.
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 specific computation result: the date a 72(t) series may be changed without recapture penalty. It includes the precise IRS rule, distinguishing it from related tools like sepp_72t_payment or bridge_to_59_half by focusing on the modification lock-in date.
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 clear context for when the tool is relevant: determining the lock-in end date for a 72(t) series. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the definition is specific enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.