search_tax_authoritySearch cited Form BE or Form B rules by topic, field ID, rule ID, or TaxBrain category. Returns official source records with every match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Tax topic, Form BE field, or TaxBrain category | |
| taxYear | No | ||
| formType | No | BE |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns 'every match' and 'official source records', providing some behavioral context, but lacks details on pagination, limits, or response structure.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with zero filler. It is concise and directly usable.
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?
With no output schema and low schema coverage, the description leaves the return format of 'official source records' unclear, and it does not mention taxYear or audit parameters. For a simple search tool with read-only annotations, it is adequate but not 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?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only query is described). The description adds 'rule ID' to query semantics and implicitly conveys formType via 'Form BE or Form B', but it does not explain taxYear or the nested audit object, leaving gaps.
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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'cited Form BE or Form B rules', along with the search dimensions (topic, field ID, rule ID, TaxBrain category). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on readiness, release, or draft preparation.
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 by stating what can be searched, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools have distinct purposes, but the description offers no comparative guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: checking readiness, fetching release details, listing releases, preparing a draft, and searching rules. No two tools overlap in purpose, and the form-specific context (Form B vs Form BE) further differentiates them.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern (assess_, get_, list_, prepare_, search_). The style is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer the action from the name.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. It covers discovery, search, readiness assessment, and draft preparation without being bloated or too sparse.
The tool set covers the main workflows for Form BE and Form B preparation, but there is a slight asymmetry: readiness is only for Form B, and draft preparation only for Form BE. Submission and data storage are intentionally excluded, so the surface is coherent but not fully symmetric.