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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive calculation. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: the legal rule, effective dates, election effects, and the fact that bonus applies after any Section 179 deduction. It does not describe error behavior or return shape, but the core calculation behavior is well 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: it first states what the tool does, then supplies the necessary legal and date-based context. The length is justified by the complexity of the tax rule, though some citations and statutory detail could be trimmed without losing call guidance.

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 complex tax calculation with no output schema, the description provides enough legal context, effective dates, election behavior, and Section 179 interaction to call the tool correctly. It could be stronger by explicitly stating the return values or edge-case handling, but it is largely complete.

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 seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces key semantics such as written binding contract dates, reduced-rate elections, and Section 179 interaction, but it does not add much per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already 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 states a specific verb and resource: it finds the IRC 168(k) bonus depreciation rate from acquisition and placed-in-service dates and applies it after Section 179. It is clearly distinct from a generic depreciation tool, though it does not explicitly name the sibling calculate_section_179 or vehicle-limit tools as 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 description gives detailed conditions for when bonus depreciation applies, including acquisition dates, placed-in-service dates, elections, and long-production/aircraft exceptions. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus calculate_section_179 or get_vehicle_depreciation_limits, so routing guidance is only implied.

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