compare_tax_returns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that only fields recognized with confidence are compared and that the difference is calculated as year2 minus year1. It stops short of describing edge cases or explicitly confirming non-mutation, but the compare semantics and confidence limitation are meaningful transparency.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The purpose, return content, and important confidence limitation are each given a focused sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-required-integer tool, the description covers the core invocation needs: what is compared, what is returned, and a key caveat about recognized fields. An output schema exists to document return structure, so the description does not need to elaborate further. Minor gaps remain around missing-year behavior or whether unrecognized fields are silently omitted.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It partially does by clarifying the difference order (year2 - year1) and indicating that year1 and year2 correspond to the two declarations being compared. The integer-year meaning is apparent from the parameter names, and the formula clarifies the relationship between them.

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 states a specific action (compare), a specific resource (two declarations/tax returns), and a focused scope (recognized fields: totals + key fields). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_tax_return and list_tax_returns, which retrieve single returns or lists rather than compare two years.

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 an agent needs side-by-side comparison and year-over-year difference for two declarations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the routing decision somewhat implicit.

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