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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: it uses 2025 tax brackets, includes standard deduction and child tax credit, supports specific state tax types, and is explicitly approximate. It also warns that actual results may differ. This exceeds the reduced bar set by annotations.

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 about five sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by essential details and limitations. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, limitations, state support, and tax rule details. There is no output schema, but the first sentence already indicates the return type ('refund or amount owed estimate'). It also clarifies which states are supported and what income types are included, making it complete for a 9-parameter tool.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds some context (e.g., child tax credit relates to num_dependents, state support for specific states), but it does not add significant meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Provides a rough federal (and optionally state) tax refund or amount owed estimate from basic inputs.' This uses a specific verb ('provides') and resource ('tax estimate'), and differentiates it from sibling tools like ask_tax_question or explain_tax_document.

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 gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance by listing exclusions: 'No itemized deductions, no self-employment tax, no capital gains.' It also states the scope ('covers W-2/wage income with standard deduction'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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