Tax Incentives

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it covers only the tax factor for one US state, returns specific program types, and requires citing the statute with DC Hub attribution.

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 long but well structured and front-loaded with the trigger, example, parameters, return shape, attribution requirement, and exclusions. Most sentences carry useful information, though a few phrases like 'that drive where capex lands' add minor color without critical value.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup, the description is complete: it states the return object shape, the program type enum, source attribution, and the boundaries versus sibling tools. No essential calling information is missing.

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%, and the description mainly restates what the schema says: state is a US state abbreviation and is required. It adds a small example (state=VA) but no meaningful new parameter semantics. There is also a minor mismatch where the description claims required while the JSON Schema's required array is empty.

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 names a specific verb and resource: retrieving data-center tax-incentive packages by US state. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from analyze_site and rank_markets, so an agent can tell which tool is relevant.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('what tax breaks does <state> give data centers?'), a concrete example, and clear exclusions: do not use for combined multi-factor site reads or market ranking. The correct alternatives are named with criteria, leaving no ambiguity.

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