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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false): it discloses concrete side effects (client gets an email and mobile push notification), reminder cadence (reminder_days default 3), the default confirmation gate, and the external-reach warning to confirm with the user. This is rich behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and sentences are short. Slight redundancy around the confirmation requirement ('By default you confirm each call... Reaches other people: confirm with the user before each call') costs a little, but overall it is efficient.

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 send-type tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, defaults, auth needs, and the confirmation gate, which is close to complete. It does not describe what returning/confirming looks like, but that is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description only restates reminder_days default (3) and clarifies items become fields, adding marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource (send a client request for documents/information) and names the target (an account). It distinguishes itself from sibling request/message tools like taxdome_list_requests and taxdome_send_message by specifying it creates a document/information request with listed items.

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?

Clearly frames the scenario (requesting documents or information from a client) and gives operational guidance about the per-call confirmation requirement. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like taxdome_send_message, so routing is left partly to inference, but context is solid.

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