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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context: the tool shows options with transparent pricing and a link, rather than performing a direct connection. It also discloses the important caveat that Xpert Assist is a separate purchase, which helps 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?

Four purposeful sentences, each earning its place: the main action, the standalone-product caveat, what is shown, and availability. Information is front-loaded and contains no wasted words.

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 adequately explains the outcome (shows options/pricing/link) and includes key context about the offering's separate nature. It could also specify how topic/preferred_channel influence results, but the schema covers parameter details and the tool's scope is simple enough for this to be complete.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail, only mentioning availability for consumer and business returns, which maps to return_type but adds little beyond the schema.

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 tool helps the user connect with a credentialed TaxAct tax professional via Xpert Assist, a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself by noting this is a standalone product separate from DIY plans and available for consumer/business returns, setting it apart from sibling tools like ask_tax_question.

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 by explaining Xpert Assist is not included with DIY tiers and that the tool shows pricing and a start link, implying use when a user wants expert help beyond DIY. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the standalone product framing gives adequate usage guidance.

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