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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context: it 'returns the interview breadcrumb path' (output behavior), 'Covers 150+ topics' (scope/coverage), and 'No account required' (access friction). This enriches the behavioral picture without contradicting 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states the core action, second provides search examples and return format, third gives scope and access detail. No fluff or redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary 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 simple lookup tool with 2 params and no output schema, this description is complete: it explains what, how, examples, scope, return value, and access prerequisite. The sibling tool list shows clear differentiation, and the annotations confirm safety. No critical missing information.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches the parameters by showing valid query examples ('W-2', '1099-R', 'crypto') and clarifying that return_type is relevant across 'individual (1040) and business returns.' This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions, adding practical semantics.

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 verb+resource: 'Finds where to enter specific tax information in the TaxAct interview.' It adds search modes (topic, form number, keyword) and differentiates from sibling tools like ask_tax_question or explain_tax_document by focusing on navigation within the interview. The examples ('W-2', '1099-R') make the purpose concrete.

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 clearly implies when to use: when you need to locate where to enter tax-related data, not for tax advice or explanations. It even gives query examples and return type scope ('individual (1040) and business returns'). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use ask_tax_question for tax law interpretations'), so it's slightly below a 5.

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