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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns an approximation (not a precise figure) and carries a 'NOT tax advice — recommends CPA consultation' caveat, which an agent must convey. No return format detail, but that is minor here.

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-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then layers scoping detail and the disclaimer. The parenthetical list of states is long but each example earns its place by signaling which state credit regimes are covered; overall it is dense but not padded.

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, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned ('combined fed+state savings approximation'), the scope, and the legal caveat. An agent has enough to call it and frame the result correctly; only a note on how the approximation is bounded is missing.

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% for both parameters, so gift amount and 2-letter state code are already fully documented. The description only restates that savings are computed 'for a given gift amount' and does not add format or constraint guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (state-by-state charitable donation tax savings) and what it computes (combined federal + state savings approximation for a gift amount). The enumerated state credit examples (AZ QCO, MA, OR Cultural Trust) make it clearly distinct from siblings like get_legacy_giving or estimate_donor_impact.

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?

Gives a clear usage cue — 'Especially valuable in states with charitable CREDITS' — which tells the agent when this tool outperforms a generic estimate. However, it names no alternative tool or explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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