list_tax_credits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no further safety disclosure is required. The description adds some context about the returned content (eligibility, amounts, phase-out rules) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data sources, rate limits, or side effects. With annotations already covering the behavioral profile, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and resource before listing covered categories. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundant or filler language. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward listing tool.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with optional parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the scope, the categories, and the kind of information the user will receive. No critical operational detail is missing.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema, with category providing an enum of options and refundableOnly described as 'Only show refundable credits'. The description repeats the category coverage but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('List') and resource ('available federal tax credits') and identifies the kind of information returned (eligibility, amounts, phase-out rules). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_deductions and calculate_eitc by focusing specifically on credits rather than deductions or a single credit calculation.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when an agent needs an overview of federal tax credits across categories such as family, education, energy, retirement, healthcare, and income. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the listing-oriented wording is enough to separate it from more targeted sibling tools like check_credit_eligibility.

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