State-level context for ITIN holders: state/local taxes paid by undocumented immigrants (ITEP 2022), effective tax rate, driver's-license access law, and the state guide URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | US state name or 2-letter code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns specific data points (ITEP 2022 taxes, rate, law, URL) but does not disclose response format, pagination, or any side effects. Since annotations cover the read-only nature, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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, information-dense sentence listing all key data points (taxes, rate, law, URL) without waste. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and perfectly scannable.
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?
Given the single parameter and the listing of all returned data types in the description, the tool is adequately specified. There is no output schema, but the description tells the agent exactly what fields to expect, making it sufficiently complete for a lookup 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 has 100% coverage with description 'US state name or 2-letter code' for the single parameter. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, but the coverage is complete, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 provides state-level context for ITIN holders, listing specific data points (taxes paid, effective rate, driver's-license law, state guide URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_guides and get_guide by specifying the exact content returned, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage for when state-specific ITIN tax and policy information is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the clarity of the data scope makes it obvious this is for state-level factual lookup, distinct from broader guide tools. It lacks explicit exclusions but is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.