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

Without annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It mentions using progressive brackets and standard deduction, and lists return fields. However, it does not disclose assumptions (e.g., no itemization, no tax credits, only federal) or limitations, leaving some behavioral traits implicit.

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 with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the reference to list_bundles is efficient. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (tax calculation with optional filing status), the description covers basic behavior and return fields but omits explicit statements about what is not covered (e.g., tax credits, additional deductions). It is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of inputs. The tool description does not add significant parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. 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 calculates US federal income tax for 2026 using progressive brackets and standard deduction. The resource 'US federal income tax' is specific and distinguishes it from other tax calculators in the sibling list.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only references 'list_bundles' for related calculators without explaining differences or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.

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