check_tip_deduction_eligibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it lists exact return fields, states the informational-only nature, warns that occupation codes are placeholder slugs not validated against IRS codes, and declares the applicable tax-year window. This is thorough disclosure of behavior and limitations.

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 return values, then adds essential caveats. Every sentence earns its place: the disclaimers about tax advice and placeholder codes are critical for correct use, and the tax-year restriction is essential. No redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema, the description lists the key return components (sunset status, transition relief, TTOC occupation eligibility, MAGI phase-out fraction, overall flag) sufficiently. It also provides scope (2025-2028), placeholder warnings, and verification guidance, making it complete for an informational eligibility-check tool.

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 adds value by warning that occupation codes are descriptive placeholders, not numeric Treasury codes, and by linking to `list_eligible_occupations` for valid codes. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb ('Checks whether...eligible'), the specific resource ('OBBBA No-Tax-on-Tips federal deduction'), and the scope ('without computing a dollar amount'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly excluding dollar-amount estimation and referencing `list_eligible_occupations` for code lookup.

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 implies when to use the tool: for eligibility checks only, not for dollar estimates. It also mentions using `list_eligible_occupations` for valid codes and advises verification with IRS/professional, but it does not explicitly contrast all sibling tools or specify exclusions (e.g., when to use `estimate_tip_deduction`).

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