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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added behavioural context is the 'Not tax advice' disclaimer and the word 'default' (generic guidance, not user-specific computed figures) — useful, but silent on return format or what happens when event_type is omitted.

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?

A single tight sentence plus a short disclaimer; the resource, jurisdictions and optional filter are all front-loaded with no filler. It is slightly under-specified rather than bloated, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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 two-parameter, zero-required, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and the jurisdiction scope but never explains the shape of the 'treatment notes' or the behaviour when no event_type is supplied (all event types vs none). Adequate but with a clear gap for a zero-required-parameter 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 50%: jurisdiction is documented in the schema, while event_type has only a self-explanatory enum. The description compensates partly by naming the supported jurisdictions in prose and flagging event_type as an optional narrowing filter, but adds no value beyond that.

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 states a specific resource (PaperTax default treatment notes) and a specific scope (Australia or the US, optionally narrowed to one event type), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling get_tax_summary, which is the nearest conceptual neighbour.

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?

It implies how to narrow the lookup ('optionally for one event type') and adds a 'Not tax advice' caveat, but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to get_tax_summary or get_ledger_events. Nothing tells the agent when this is the right call versus a summary or ledger tool.

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