how_to_get_an_itin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not burdened with basic safety. It adds that the tool returns a guide URL and covers process/documents/timelines/mistakes, which gives some output expectation. However, it does not discuss any other behavioral aspects like rate limits or auth, which is acceptable for a read-only informational tool.

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 a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and organized with a colon listing the covered topics. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, mentions the content areas and the guide URL, and notes language support. There is minor ambiguity about whether it returns the full guide text or just the URL, but overall it is complete enough for an agent.

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 fully describes the lang parameter with an enum and clear description ('en (default) or es (Spanish)'), so the description's 'EN/ES' adds no new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the description provides no additional parameter value.

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 tool provides the ITIN application process, documents, timelines, common mistakes, and a guide URL. It is specific to 'how to get an ITIN', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_guides or get_guide, which are more generic.

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 its use for ITIN application questions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_guides or get_guide. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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