irs-taxpayer-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It describes the tool's outputs (tax difference and MFS restrictions) but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this performs calculations, makes recommendations, requires specific data inputs beyond the schema, or has any limitations in accuracy. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral context unspecified.

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 purpose and outputs. Every word earns its place - the first sentence states what's being compared, the second specifies the outputs. There's no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex tax comparison tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and output information but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain the comparison methodology, accuracy limitations, or what format the results will take. With no annotations and no output schema, users need more context about how this tool behaves and what to expect from its outputs.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions general outputs but doesn't explain how specific parameters like 'studentLoanInterest' or 'hasEducationCredits' affect the comparison. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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'), the resources being compared ('Married Filing Jointly vs Married Filing Separately'), and the outputs ('tax difference and lists all MFS restrictions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'compare_filing_statuses' by focusing specifically on MFJ vs MFS comparison rather than general filing status analysis.

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 by specifying it 'shows tax difference and lists all MFS restrictions that may affect your situation,' indicating this tool is for tax planning decisions between these two filing statuses. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'compare_filing_statuses' or provide exclusion criteria for when this comparison might not be applicable.

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