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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive calculation. The description adds the important 30-month window and the 100%/50% rural threshold, but it does not explain how the inputs interact or what the output represents beyond the implied required amount.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical efficiently states the key threshold distinction.

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 five-parameter tax calculation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, this is too sparse. It gives the core rule but leaves the agent without enough information to confidently supply or interpret the inputs.

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 0%, so the description must define the five parameters. It only alludes to a building's basis, the 30-month period, and the rural condition; it does not explain purchase_price, land_value, spent_so_far, or how start_date is used.

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 identifies the specific calculation: how much must be added to a building's basis within 30 months, including the 100% vs. 50% rural rule. That is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling calculators, though it uses a question rather than an explicit verb and does not name adjacent tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the 180-day deadline or 90-percent test calculators. It also omits prerequisites, assumptions, and when-not-to-use conditions.

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