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 lists deductions with 'eligibility rules and limits,' implying a read-only, informational function, but doesn't specify output format (e.g., structured list, JSON), pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves, such as whether it requires authentication or has rate limits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences. The first sentence directly states the purpose, and the second adds useful scope information ('Covers both above-the-line and itemized deductions'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and scope but lacks details on output format, usage context, and behavioral traits. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns and how to interpret results, but it meets a bare minimum for a simple listing tool.

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 the single parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the meaning of categories like 'medical' or 'interest' or how filtering works. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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: 'List available tax deductions with eligibility rules and limits.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('tax deductions'), and scope ('eligibility rules and limits'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_tax_credits' or 'calculate_obbb_deductions'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'standard_vs_itemized', which might overlap in discussing deduction types, preventing a perfect score.

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 'Covers both above-the-line and itemized deductions,' which hints at scope but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for general reference, tax planning, or form-filling, nor does it direct users to sibling tools like 'standard_vs_itemized' for comparisons.

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