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. While it mentions personalization and the factors considered, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), what the output format is (e.g., list, structured data), whether it's interactive or batch, or any limitations (e.g., based on current tax laws, may not cover all scenarios). For a tool with 20 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 tool's purpose and personalization basis without any redundant or vague language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Generate a personalized checklist') and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity (20 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It clearly states what the tool does and the input basis, which is sufficient for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on output format, behavioral traits (e.g., whether it's a static list or dynamic calculation), and any constraints or dependencies, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use without further context.

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 each parameter clearly documented in the schema (e.g., 'hasW2: Have W-2 employment'). The description adds value by summarizing the parameter categories ('income sources, deductions, and life events'), which helps the agent understand the grouping, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or interaction details beyond what the schema already offers. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Generate a personalized checklist') and resource ('tax documents you need to gather for filing'), with explicit differentiation from siblings by focusing on document gathering rather than analysis, calculation, or planning. It specifies the personalization factors ('Based on your income sources, deductions, and life events'), making it distinct from tools like 'get_form_filing_guide' or 'get_personalized_tax_calendar'.

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 for when to use this tool ('for filing' and 'Based on your income sources, deductions, and life events'), indicating it's for preparation rather than analysis or calculation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'get_form_filing_guide' for form instructions or 'list_deductions' for deduction details, which would have earned a 5.

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