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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: answers are grounded in verified IRS references, not LLM training data, and no account is required. This goes beyond the annotations to build trust and set expectations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second scopes coverage, and the third adds trust and access details. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 single-parameter Q&A tool with strong annotations, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, what topics it covers, the source grounding, and access requirements. No output schema is needed for this tool type, so the description is fully adequate.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a description and examples. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific semantics, but it does list topic coverage that indirectly clarifies what kinds of questions are appropriate. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Answers' with a clear resource: 'TaxAct's TY2025 tax law knowledge base.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like tax_deadlines (dates), estimate_taxes (calculations), and explain_tax_document (document-specific) by focusing on general tax law Q&A.

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 usage: ask tax law questions within the listed topics. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, leaving the usage guidance to inference rather than explicit direction.

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