check_refund_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'does NOT access your IRS account' and 'provides the official links and requirements,' which gives some behavioral context (informational, non-interactive). However, it lacks details on output format, potential rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 core purpose and followed by a clarifying limitation. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words—making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral constraints. However, it could be slightly more complete by hinting at the output (e.g., 'returns instructions as text' or similar), though this is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'filedElectronically' with its type and description. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Provide instructions on how to check IRS refund status.' It specifies the verb ('provide instructions') and resource ('IRS refund status'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating what it does NOT do ('does NOT access your IRS account').

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it states 'This tool does NOT access your IRS account — it provides the official links and requirements,' clarifying that it's for informational guidance rather than direct account access. This helps differentiate it from potential tools that might directly interact with IRS systems.

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