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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add behavioral context — and it does: 'It does not file' preempts the agent assuming an action, and 'Unknown transaction facts are unknown/needs-review' discloses how unknown inputs are reported. It falls short of describing rate limits, auth needs, or output shape.

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?

It is short and the purpose sentence is front-loaded, so there is little wasted length. But the remaining sentences are dense tax-jargon assertions (Form 5472/1120 pairing, the $25,000 penalty quote) with no clear structure or ordering, forcing the agent to parse domain claims to find actionable guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. For a six-parameter, tax-domain tool the description gives useful behavioral caveats but still omits input semantics and any when-to-use framing, leaving it only minimally 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?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It only partially relates a couple of inputs to behavior ('conditional on reportable transactions and entity status,' unknown enum handling) while leaving entityType, ownerResidency, formationState, and formationDate entirely unexplained; the $25,000/penalty sentence describes output content, not inputs.

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 opening phrase 'Read-only dated obligations' does convey that the tool returns dated compliance obligations, so an agent gets a rough sense of the resource. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, never says 'deadlines' explicitly, and does nothing to differentiate it from the six sibling formation/compliance tools.

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 impliedly scopes usage by noting Form 5472 is 'conditional on reportable transactions and entity status, not an automatic yearly filing,' which hints at when the tool is relevant. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to siblings like assess_formation or prepare_application.

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