irs-taxpayer-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'checks' eligibility, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's a calculation, estimation, or lookup. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or a list, or if it's based on current tax laws. For a tool with 14 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Check which tax credits you may be eligible for based on your situation.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of eligible credits, detailed calculations), how results are formatted, or any limitations (e.g., based on current tax year, U.S.-specific). For a tool with many inputs and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 high (86%), with most parameters having clear descriptions (e.g., 'Adjusted Gross Income', 'Have qualifying children under 17'). The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., how 'agi' and 'filingStatus' affect eligibility) or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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: 'Check which tax credits you may be eligible for based on your situation.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('tax credits'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_tax_credits' (which likely lists available credits rather than checking eligibility) and 'calculate_eitc' (which calculates a specific credit). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'run_tax_health_check', which might have overlapping scope.

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 ('based on your situation'), suggesting it should be used when a user wants to determine eligibility for various tax credits. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tax_credits' (for listing credits) or 'calculate_eitc' (for calculating a specific credit), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not detailed.

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