get_form_filing_guide

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 describes the output as a 'step-by-step guide' but doesn't specify format (e.g., text, list, structured data), length, or any limitations (e.g., coverage of forms, depth of explanations). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('step-by-step guide') and succinctly lists key features (explains sections, data needed, common mistakes). Every phrase adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic context but is incomplete for a tool that likely returns detailed guidance. It doesn't address output format, potential errors (e.g., unsupported forms), or depth of information. For a tool with one parameter and no structured output, it's minimally adequate but lacks richness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'formNumber' parameter as an IRS form identifier with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or usage tips. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: providing a 'step-by-step guide for filling out a specific IRS form or schedule' with explanations of sections, required data, and common mistakes. It specifies the verb ('guide') and resource ('IRS form or schedule'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_irs_form_info' or 'get_tax_document_checklist'.

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 ('filling out a specific IRS form or schedule') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for general guidance versus detailed analysis offered by tools like 'analyze_education_tax_benefits' or 'calculate_federal_tax'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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