irs-taxpayer-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool calculates without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only calculation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the results take. The phrase 'Shows which deductions you qualify for' hints at output but lacks detail.

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?

Two sentences efficiently cover purpose and output. The first sentence lists all deduction types clearly, and the second explains the tool's dual output (qualifications and savings). No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 9-parameter calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what's calculated but lacks details on output format, error handling, or dependencies. Given the complexity, it should do more to guide the agent on how results are structured and used.

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 high at 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by naming the deduction types, which loosely maps to parameters like 'tipIncome' and 'autoLoanInterest', but doesn't explain parameter relationships or calculation logic. It doesn't compensate for the 11% coverage gap.

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 calculates OBBB deductions for TY2025+, listing specific deduction types (tips income, overtime pay, senior bonus, auto loan interest). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_deductions' by focusing on calculation rather than listing, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other calculation tools like 'calculate_total_tax'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_total_tax' or 'list_deductions'. The description implies it's for TY2025+ OBBB deductions but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from parameter requirements.

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