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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable context that it is an educational reference tool and does not process uploaded documents, which is a key behavioral constraint. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then coverage, then a clear limitation. 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?

The description is complete for an educational reference tool: it states the function, the covered forms, and a key limitation. Given the annotations and schema, no critical information is missing. It doesn't need to describe return values since no output schema.

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 has 100% coverage with examples for form_name and focus_box. The description adds the notion of 'general document type' beyond the specific examples, and mentions 'what each box means' which aligns with focus_box. This exceeds the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Explains') and clearly identifies the subject (tax forms, boxes, TaxAct data entry). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being an educational reference tool that does not read/process documents, which differentiates it from ask_tax_question or tax_document_checklist.

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?

It explicitly says when to use ('Ask about a specific form or a general document type') and provides a clear exclusion ('Does NOT read or process uploaded documents'). However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly, so not a full 5.

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