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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context about what deadlines are included and the tax year scope, going beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions.

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 two well-structured sentences with front-loaded, precise information. The first sentence summarizes the output scope, and the second clarifies the optional state code. No unnecessary verbiage.

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 tool is simple with no output schema, and the description adequately conveys the return content (deadline categories) and the state-specific behavior. It could be slightly more explicit about response structure, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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?

All parameters are fully covered by schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds limited additional semantic value. It does reinforce that state is optional and aligns the deadline categories with the boolean flags, but this is already present in 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 returns key tax deadlines for the 2025 tax year (filing 2026), listing specific deadline types (federal, extension, estimated payments, document mailing, state-specific). This distinguishes it from siblings like estimate_taxes 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?

The description implies use when tax deadlines are needed and mentions the optional state parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No direct reference to sibling tools is given.

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