compare_state_taxes

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for relocation decisions' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what data sources are used, whether calculations are estimates or exact, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage context. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for this tool's complexity.

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 has 2 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral transparency about how the comparison works and what results to expect. For a tax calculation tool, users need to understand the nature of the output (estimates vs. exact, format, limitations), which isn't addressed.

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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema fully describes both parameters: 'states' as an array of state codes with examples, and 'taxableIncome' as annual income. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the 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 tool's purpose: 'Compare state income tax across multiple states for the same income.' This specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('state income tax'), and scope ('multiple states for the same income'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'estimate_state_tax' (single-state estimation) and 'compare_filing_statuses' (different comparison dimension), though not explicitly named.

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: 'Useful for relocation decisions.' This gives a strong signal about when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'analyze_relocation_taxes' or 'get_state_tax_info', which might offer different functionality.

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