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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool computes annual tax reduction and a 3-year retroactive refund demand, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what side effects or permissions are involved, or whether a demand letter is generated.

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 dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the action and every clause contributes statutory or calculation context. It is appropriately sized for a complex legal-audit tool, though the sentence is somewhat heavy.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more to explain what the audit returns beyond the high-level annual reduction and refund demand. It provides enough to understand the purpose but leaves return structure and eligibility nuances underspecified.

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 the input schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds useful legal and ratio context but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: auditing property misclassification from 40% Commercial to 25% Residential under a cited statute, and it adds the calculation/refund scope. This is clearly distinguishable from generic sibling tools like audit_property_tax, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 commercial-to-residential misclassification scenario implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to related siblings such as audit_retroactive_tax_recovery or audit_property_tax.

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