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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Returns state tax due and effective rate', which is redundant since an output schema exists, and its behavioral claims (filing status as an input) conflict with the actual schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, which is good, but the 'Inputs' sentence is wasted because it is partly wrong, and the list_bundles cross-reference is tangential. Size is reasonable but not every sentence earns its place.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, most of the burden is carried by structured fields. The description is serviceable but leaves an inaccurate input list uncorrected and provides no cross-state limitations (e.g., only 8 states supported) that an agent would need.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description actively misleads: it lists 'filing status' as an input (not in the schema) and calls the income field 'gross income' when the schema defines it as 'Annual taxable income'. This adds incorrect parameter meaning rather than clarifying it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compute US state income tax for a chosen state'), making the purpose clear and distinct from federal-tax siblings like calculate_us_federal_tax. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with the other tax calculators it could be confused with.

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?

'Use for paycheck planning across states' offers a scenario but no when-to-use-vs-alternatives logic, no exclusions, and no boundary against calculate_us_federal_tax or calculate_us_paycheck. The pointer to 'list_bundles' is a routing hint, not usage guidance for this tool.

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