irs-taxpayer-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool 'calculates' and 'estimates,' it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only calculation, if it saves data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the recommendations come in. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 perfectly concise with two clear sentences that front-load the core functionality. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second elaborates on the outputs. There's no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It clearly states what the tool does but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a calculation tool with significant input requirements, users would benefit from more context about what to expect from the output.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds context by mentioning 'per-paycheck federal tax' which relates to the payFrequency parameter, and 'W-4 form recommendations' which connects to the overall purpose. However, it doesn't provide additional parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline expectation.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('calculate', 'estimates', 'provides') and resources ('W-4 withholding settings', 'per-paycheck federal tax', 'W-4 form recommendations'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on W-4 calculations rather than broader tax analysis or other tax-related functions.

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 usage context through the mention of 'per-paycheck federal tax' and 'W-4 form recommendations,' suggesting it's for employment tax withholding planning. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_federal_tax' or 'analyze_paycheck,' nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites for use.

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