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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key factors (short/long-term, NIIT, state tax, latest brackets) but does not discuss limitations, assumptions, or edge cases, which a tax calculator would benefit from.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each clause adds information, but the ambiguous 'CDN' acronym (likely 'current' or 'Canada') creates confusion and slightly detracts from clarity.

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?

No output schema is provided and no annotations exist, so the description should clarify expected output and behavior. It does not explain whether the result is a tax amount, breakdown, or marginal rate, nor does it mention assumptions about required inputs like ordinaryIncome. The ambiguous 'CDN' further reduces completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds slight meaning by connecting state to state tax and ordinaryIncome to NIIT, but it does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema already states.

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 calculates US capital gains tax on stock/crypto, with short vs long-term, NIIT, and state tax. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling calculators like estate or 1099-K tax, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 context is clear: use this for US capital gains tax on stocks/crypto. It implies when it applies but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving exclusions to inference.

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