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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description aligns with by saying 'Return'. It adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: the 'Phase 3 ships the shape; full record assembly lands in a follow-on phase' limitation, and the requirement for OAuth scope personal:read. This is honest about incomplete output and access prerequisites.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The subsequent disclaimers and phase note each add meaningful context, though 'NOT professional advice' and 'consult a CPA' are somewhat redundant. Overall it is efficient without being bloated.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key elements: what data is returned, which wallet it applies to, the year parameter, auth requirements, and the current phase limitation. It does not detail the response format, but none is expected given no output schema; the disclosure of the phased implementation makes it sufficiently complete.

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 clarify the sole parameter. It says 'for a given year,' which identifies year as the tax-year filter. The schema supplies the valid range (2020-2099) and required status, so the parameter semantics are sufficiently compensated for such a simple case.

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 directly states the tool returns structured tax line items (FTSO/MIRROR claims, FlareDrop, validation rewards) for the calling wallet and a given year, using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tax-specific tool from sibling wallet tools like get_my_rewards_history and get_my_claimable. The 'NOT a tax calculator' line further clarifies scope.

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?

Clear context is provided: the tool is for the calling wallet's tax line items for a specific year, with a required OAuth scope. The description explicitly excludes using it as a tax calculator or professional advice. However, it does not name alternative tools for related queries (e.g., get_my_rewards_history), leaving some routing to inference.

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