irs-taxpayer-mcp

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 states the tool 'generates' and 'shows' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, what format the output takes, or whether it's a calculation versus a lookup. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and what it shows. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from output details). Every sentence earns its place.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., calendar format, data structure), how parameters affect results, or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that generates personalized content based on multiple inputs, more context is needed for effective use.

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%, with all 6 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'taxYear: Tax year to get calendar for'). The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'based on your situation' which loosely relates to the boolean parameters but doesn't explain their specific semantics or interactions. 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: 'Generate a personalized tax calendar based on your situation. Shows deadlines for filing, estimated payments, extensions, and key actions.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('personalized tax calendar'), and scope ('based on your situation'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tax_deadlines' or 'get_tax_document_checklist', which likely provide related but different 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. It mentions generating a calendar 'based on your situation' but doesn't specify prerequisites, ideal use cases, or when other tools like 'get_tax_deadlines' might be more appropriate. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references.

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