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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it doesn't say whether this is a read-only calculation or a filed audit, whether results depend on eligibility screening, what happens if the member fails a threshold, or what the response contains. 'Audit and calculate' signals an eligibility determination plus a dollar computation, but nothing about permissions, side effects, or determinism is disclosed.

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?

One dense sentence with the operative verb and scope front-loaded; the statute and form citation earn their place by anchoring the legal basis. No filler.

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?

A 10-parameter, legally specialized tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than a statute citation. The description never states eligibility criteria, how days-deployed interacts with the tax amount to produce a result, or what the return value looks like — an agent cannot tell whether it receives an eligibility finding, a computed abatement amount, or a filing packet.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the statutory context for the calculation and no syntax, format, or interaction guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb pair ('Audit and calculate') paired with a precisely scoped resource: ad valorem tax abatement for active-duty members deployed outside the US under Fla. Stat. § 196.173. The statute, form number (DR-501M), and 'combat deployment' framing implicitly separate it from the broader veteran-relief siblings, though no sibling is named.

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 statutory scope implies when the tool applies (deployed service member, Florida or reciprocal state, ad valorem tax), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to alternatives such as check_veteran_relief or audit_disabled_veteran_relief. The agent must infer the boundary from the legal citation alone.

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