departi_check_tax

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context: it states the tool is 'Advisory only, not tax advice,' and discloses a specific edge case—'any US citizenship triggers worldwide/citizenship-based obligations regardless of residence or other passports.' This goes beyond what annotations provide and is useful for an AI agent.

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 the main purpose, followed by a bullet-style list of returns, then advisory and special notes. It is concise: five sentences covering all necessary aspects without fluff. Slightly longer than minimal due to the detailed return list and US note, but 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?

Given the tool's complexity (tax treaties, day counting, citizenship-based rules), the description covers the main outputs and sets expectations (advisory only). Schema and annotations handle input details and safety. The only minor gap is lack of mention of data sources or update frequency, but these are not critical for a read-only advisory tool. Overall complete for typical use.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not directly explain parameters but implicitly links them via the return description (e.g., duration affects day threshold). The US note adds meaning to the nationality parameter. Overall, the description adds marginal value beyond the already-complete schema, hence a 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assesses tax-residency risk and double-tax-treaty position for a traveller in a destination.' It lists concrete return items (risk, treaty provisions, special regimes, FEIE context) and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like departi_check_visa and departi_track_schengen by focusing on tax residency and treaty analysis.

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 provides explicit usage context with example queries: 'Use for "will staying here make me tax resident / what does the treaty say / how are my days counted".' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not list alternative tools by name, but the sibling list and tool name make the scope clear. No exclusions or when-not guidance are given, but the use cases are well-defined.

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