Tax Dispute Resolution Guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'step-by-step guide' but does not explain what the output looks like, whether it customizes based on parameters, or any side effects. There's no context beyond the basic process scope, leaving the agent guessing about the tool's behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and uses an em-dash to add scope detail. Every word earns its place 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?

The description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and scope for a simple guide, but it lacks specifics about how the input parameters affect the output or what the returned guidance will look like. Without an output schema or annotations, a bit more detail would make the tool more predictable.

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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a step-by-step guide for disputing a CRA assessment, specifying the process from Notice of Objection through Tax Court. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling guides like voluntary_disclosure_guide.

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 (when disputing a CRA assessment) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't clarify how it differs from other guides like voluntary_disclosure_guide, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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