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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the call receives no tax facts, creates no return and no link, returns a continuationHandle and packetRules, and that the filing link comes only with an accepted packet. It also explains replacement behavior for expired or unfinished sessions and what happens when the same packet is sent on the new handle.

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 front-loaded with purpose and output, and most sentences carry useful routing or behavioral information. It is somewhat long and occasionally wordy, especially around the expired/unfinished-link case and covered-returns paragraph, which keeps it from being maximally concise.

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 complex filing domain, zero-parameter schema, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description provides enough scope and behavioral context for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the return types handled and clearly states what the call does and does not create.

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?

The tool has zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Input: none', but there is no additional parameter meaning to explain.

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: starting a filing session for a US federal individual income tax return when the taxpayer asks to file. It distinguishes the call from continuing an existing session by explaining that it creates a continuationHandle for later calls and that a fresh link replaces an expired or unfinished one.

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 clear usage context: use it when the taxpayer asks to file, and use a new session when a link expired or was left unfinished. It does not explicitly name continue_filing_session as the alternative for an existing valid handle, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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