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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds domain-specific behavioral context by naming the test battery and excluded-business list, but it does not explain pass/fail output, how missing optional inputs are treated, or what the tool returns.

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 front-loaded sentence that lists the key tests without filler. Every phrase contributes specific domain information.

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?

There is no output schema and the description does not explain return values or how the all-optional nine inputs affect which tests are evaluated. Although annotations cover safety, the definition leaves too much invocation detail unspecified for a multi-test calculation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across nine parameters, so the description must compensate. Its test percentages implicitly map to parameter pairs such as tangible_qozbp/tangible_total, gross_income_zone/gross_income_total, and nqfp/total_basis, but it never names the inputs, units, or required relationships, so the compensation is only partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('Checks') and enumerates the exact QOZB tests: 70% tangible property, 50% gross income, 40% intangibles, 5% nonqualified financial property, and the excluded-business list. This clearly identifies the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like calc_90_percent_test, calc_180_day_deadline, and get_tract.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternative sibling tools such as calc_90_percent_test or calc_substantial_improvement. Usage can only be inferred from the stated purpose.

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