irs-taxpayer-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what information is returned but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the information comes in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with specific details about what information is provided.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and operates in a domain with many similar sibling tools, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does at a high level but doesn't provide enough context about how it differs from alternatives, what the output looks like, or important behavioral considerations for a tool in a tax domain.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'formNumber'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what constitutes a 'common' IRS form, provide examples beyond what's in the schema, or clarify formatting requirements. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get information about common IRS tax forms' with specific details about what information is provided ('what they are, who needs them, and where to find them'). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('IRS tax forms'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_form_filing_guide' or 'get_tax_document_checklist' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to tax forms and information (e.g., 'get_form_filing_guide', 'get_tax_document_checklist'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's the appropriate choice. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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