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 states what the tool returns but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/structure of the returned data. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about what the return data looks like. The description meets basic requirements but leaves gaps in operational understanding.

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 both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'tax brackets' include or how 'standard deduction' is presented). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 specific action ('Get'), the resource ('federal income tax brackets and standard deduction'), and the scope ('for a given tax year and filing status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on retrieving bracket data rather than analysis, calculation, or planning functions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the purpose is clear, the description doesn't mention when to choose this over tools like 'compare_tax_years', 'compare_filing_statuses', or 'what_changed_between_tax_years' which might involve similar data. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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