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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Returns'), spells out what the result contains, and discloses a limitation (trend only where past years are known). It stops short of explaining output format or error/not-found behavior, but for a query tool this is sufficiently transparent.

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?

One focused sentence with front-loaded verb and resource, a colon introducing the output items, and a trailing caveat. No filler, repetition, or 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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, a richer description would normally be expected, but the description names all key outputs and the key limitation. It could define 'tax multiplier' or the sign convention of the annual difference, yet an agent already has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the parameters are fully described in the schema; the description adds only a conceptual link (current home -> currentBsId, trend -> years) without providing new semantics beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('tax picture for one municipality relative to a stated current home'), and enumerates the output components (annual difference, tax multiplier, multi-year trend). The comparative 'relative to' distinguishes it from siblings such as tax_lookup and favorable_municipalities.

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 the use case (comparing a candidate municipality to the current home) and includes a caveat about known past years, but it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this tool over siblings like tax_lookup or favorable_municipalities, nor provides exclusion criteria.

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