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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses real behavior: the consent-gated IRS results, the fallback results_emailed status and emailing behavior, and an explicit enumeration of what it does NOT read (return content, payment data, identity, raw IRS rejection text, history). This is unusually rich context that annotations alone could not convey.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the gating condition and then the parameter note. It is dense and every sentence carries information, though the long run-on sentence could be split for easier scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be described. Combined with the consent gating, the results_emailed fallback, the scope exclusions, and the parameter mode, an agent has everything required to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it explains the continuationHandle comes from the filing session and that no arguments are used on a legacy authenticated connector. It doesn't cover the maxLength constraint, but the semantic origin and optionality are well explained.

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: it 'reads ordered, status-only results for every jurisdiction' in the taxpayer's current filing. This clearly differentiates it from the session-management siblings by what it retrieves, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through the consent condition (IRS results only with signed status-sharing consent, otherwise results_emailed) and the handle/no-argument invocation modes. However, it never states when to reach for this versus continue_filing_session or get_packet_schema, so the routing guidance is only implicit.

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