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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description usefully explains why: it 'never stores data or submits to MyTax' and output is 'review-gated.' This is genuine added context beyond the annotation flags, though it says nothing about failure modes or what happens with inputBlockers.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the safety caveat. The terseness is a completeness problem rather than verbosity, so structure itself is sound.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters, deep nested objects, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits prerequisites, return shape, the role of inputBlockers, and the audit fields — an agent could not confidently construct a call from this alone.

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 only 18% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It never explains assessmentType codes, audit/runId sequencing, taxYear defaulting, or the inputBlockers array, leaving most parameters semantically undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Compile reviewed taxpayer inputs and a deterministic TaxBrain relief evaluation into source-linked Form BE fields.' That is clearly distinct from the sibling assess_form_b_2025_readiness (which presumably checks readiness rather than producing draft fields), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'reviewed taxpayer inputs' and 'output remains review-gated' implies this runs after a review/readiness step, and the sibling assess_form_b_2025_readiness is the likely prerequisite, but the description never states when to call this versus that tool or what must be true before invoking it.

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