Tax Health Check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool checks records, flags problems, and tells what needs attention, implying a read-only review. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, nor does it mention any limitations or data sources. This is minimal but non-contradictory behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses a relatable metaphor. There is no redundant or repetitive content; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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?

Given the simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: it states the review scope, the action taken, and the nature of the output ('tell you exactly what needs attention'). It could be more specific about output format (e.g., a list or report) but is adequate for the tool's low complexity.

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 100% and the only parameter (fiscal_year) is well-described in the schema with default behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already documents, 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 action ('Run a comprehensive review') and the resource ('your business's tax situation'), and mentions what it does ('flag problems, and tell you exactly what needs attention'). It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like audit_risk_assessment or financial_summary, so it falls short of a 5.

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 the tool is for a broad, periodic check ('like a quarterly meeting with your accountant'), but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. The sibling list includes overlapping tools like audit_risk_assessment, but no alternative is named or contrasted.

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