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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds the login prerequisite and the 10-year date restriction, which are behavioral requirements not covered by annotations. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful context, though it does not describe pagination behavior (which is already handled by schema defaults).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, date format, and a time restriction. It does not explain what a 'tax notice' includes, but given the simplicity and that annotations cover safety, it is largely complete. A minor gap is not explicitly stating that page_num/page_size defaults apply, but those are in the schema.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description adds the date range limit (last 10 years) and clarifies that account_link_id must match the prior login, which is beyond the schema. This is useful additional semantics that help the agent use the parameters correctly.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Search tax notice history.' This is specific and distinguishes it from many other search tools in the sibling list (e.g., overdue__search_history, payment_due__search_or_pay). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from these similar tools, so it is clear but not fully distinctive.

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 an explicit prerequisite (prior hometax__session__login with same account_link_id), a date format instruction (YYYYMMDD), and a constraint (start dates within last 10 years). This is strong usage guidance, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative search tools, so it is clear but lacks exclusions.

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