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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that it returns current-law amounts, statutory citations, and validity windows. It also warns about outdated training data, which is helpful. It does not mention error handling or read-only nature, but the intended behavior is clear.

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?

Two sentences: the first clearly defines purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence is valuable and there is no redundancy.

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 simple lookup tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (citations, windows) and when to use it. It lacks details on what happens for missing queries or the exact format of citations, but it is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 50% (query has description, asOf only has pattern). The description adds value by explaining query as 'plain-English search' with an example. However, the asOf parameter lacks semantic explanation beyond the date pattern, leaving ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool looks up current-law dollar amounts behind specific tax questions, provides examples like 'standard deduction' and 'CTC phase-out threshold', and explicitly says it returns statutory citations and validity windows. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_fact or search_tax_rules.

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?

The description explicitly advises to 'fact-check ANY tax number before stating it' because training data may be outdated. It implies the primary use case but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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