compare_filing_statuses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it states the tool's purpose, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only calculation, what format the comparison output takes, whether it includes state tax implications, or any rate limits. For a tax calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that directly communicate purpose and value. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 of tax calculations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the comparison output looks like, which filing statuses are compared, whether state taxes are included, or the calculation methodology. For a tool that could significantly impact financial decisions, more completeness is needed.

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 all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 specific action ('compare tax liability') and resource ('across different filing statuses for the same income'), with explicit purpose ('determine the most advantageous filing status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare_mfj_vs_mfs' (specific statuses) and 'calculate_federal_tax' (single calculation).

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Helps determine the most advantageous filing status'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for filing status comparison but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

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