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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and behavior. The description adds value by listing return fields (revenue, expenses, assets, liabilities), enhancing transparency beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise—two sentences and an example—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a concrete example for clarity.

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 simple tool with only 2 parameters, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is fully adequate. It states the return content (financial data categories) without needing to duplicate schema details.

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 coverage is 100% and the description provides an example, but it does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already provide. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool gets a specific IRS filing for a nonprofit, specifying the verb (get), resource (IRS filing), and scope (one tax period with financial data). The example further clarifies usage, distinguishing it from broader sibling tools like search_nonprofits or entity_profile.

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 for retrieving a single filing by EIN and tax period, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Given sibling tools like search_nonprofits and entity_profile, some implicit differentiation exists, but no direct exclusions are provided.

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