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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Screen eligibility' and 'Calculates exact tax relief' imply a read-only screening/calculation operation, and the statutory caps and income threshold add useful domain behavior, but the description does not explicitly state that no records are modified, whether authorization is needed, or what happens when the homeowner is ineligible.

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 two dense sentences with no wasted language. The statutory basis, eligibility scope, calculation cap, and income limit are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 must carry more context. It adequately describes the screening purpose and calculation limits, but it does not explain the return value format, what an ineligible result looks like, or how the required disability award and primary residence criteria affect the outcome.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds relevant context by stating the $30,000 market value cap ($7,500 assessed) and the $33,460 income threshold, but it does not map these to specific parameters or clarify the required disability award and primary residence fields beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific verb ('Screen eligibility') and a specific resource ('Tennessee Disabled Homeowner Property Tax Relief') with a statutory citation, which is much more precise than a generic audit tool. It implicitly distinguishes from veteran relief by naming 'disabled homeowner,' but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools such as audit_disabled_veteran_relief or check_eligibility.

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 eligibility criteria (totally disabled homeowners, household income under $33,460) imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like check_eligibility or audit_disabled_veteran_relief. No when-not-to-use conditions or routing instructions are provided.

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