get_obbba_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states that the data is informational only, not tax advice, and that occupation codes are descriptive placeholders rather than validated numeric codes. It also specifies the applicable tax years (2025-2028), providing transparency about the tool's limitations and scope.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: the main purpose, the disclaimer/verification note, and important caveats about occupation codes and tax-year scope. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides the key context: what data is returned, its limitations, and its validity period. It adequately informs the agent about the tool's scope and cautions against misuse, making it complete enough for reliable selection and invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information (there are none), but it does enrich understanding by describing the output contents. This aligns with the baseline expectation for a no-parameter tool.

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 begins with 'Returns the full OBBBA reference data' which clearly identifies the verb and resource, then lists specific contents (caps, phase-out bands, sunset window, module version, source URLs). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_tip_deduction_eligibility, estimate_tip_deduction, and list_eligible_occupations, which focus on other tasks.

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 usage for retrieving reference data, and the warning 'INFORMATIONAL ONLY — NOT TAX ADVICE. Verify with IRS...' provides an exclusion for using it as official advice. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'use this for reference data, not for estimates'). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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