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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by listing the contents of the schedule, but it does not disclose side effects (likely a read-only operation), error behavior, state coverage, or any quirks such as how disputed or missing rates are handled. It falls short of fully transparent but is not misleading.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core subject and efficiently lists the contained elements. No unnecessary words or repetition. It earns its place entirely.

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 the main outputs but lacks details about the structure of the response (e.g., how bracket ladders are represented), potential edge cases (unknown state), or whether the data is for all states. Given the absence of an output schema, more specificity would be helpful, but the description is adequate for a straightforward retrieval 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (state formats, filingStatus defaults and coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline provided by 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 identifies the tool as providing a state's 2026 tax schedule, enumerating key components (flat rate/bracket ladder, standard deduction, payroll programs, bonus method, statutory source). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compute_bonus_withholding and compute_take_home, which are computation tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieves') and relies on the name for the action.

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 that this tool is used to fetch rate schedule data, as opposed to computing withholding or take-home pay. It does not explicitly state when to use this instead of siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit through content but not made explicit.

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