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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it explains the default comparison pair, the 2013-2026 range, and that federal estate tax is included only when a taxable estate is provided, along with the P.L. 119-21 context for the 2026 exemption.

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 sentences and front-loads the core comparison before giving the default and legislative context. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or 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?

For a read-only comparison tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it lists the compared values, states the default years, and explains the optional taxable-estate behavior. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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 year_a, year_b, and taxable_estate, including defaults and ranges. The description reinforces the default 2025 vs 2026 comparison and the effect of supplying a taxable estate, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: it compares two years side by side and lists the exact figures returned, including basic exclusion amount, applicable credit, annual gift exclusion, non-citizen spouse exclusion, and federal estate tax when a taxable estate is supplied. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings such as get_exemption_amounts or calculate_estate_tax.

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?

Usage is implied by the default 2025 vs 2026 comparison and the optional taxable estate, which suggests when the tool is useful. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of get_exemption_amounts or calculate_estate_tax, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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