Tax Filing Status Dashboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. 'See' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, data source, whether the tool has side effects, auth requirements, or prerequisites. This is minimal disclosure beyond the basic read implication.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence 'Your accountant's status board' is somewhat decorative and does not add functional value, but the overall structure is concise and easy to parse.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values and parameter effects. It does mention the high-level output categories (filed, pending, overdue) but completely ignores the fiscal_year parameter and provides no details on how the dashboard behaves. For a tool with one optional parameter, this is a significant gap.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the single parameter fiscal_year at all. It fails to explain the expected format, allowed values, or how omitting the parameter affects results. The description provides no additional meaning over the schema.

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 what the tool does: it shows filing statuses (filed, pending, overdue). The verb 'see' and resource 'status board' give a specific purpose, and it is distinguishable from siblings like financial_summary or missing_receipts, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 phrase 'Your accountant's status board' implies when to use it—when you need an overview of filing statuses—but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as mark_filed or upcoming_deadlines. Usage is implied rather than clearly instructed.

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