irs-taxpayer-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what information is included (eligibility, amounts, phase-out rules) but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, or if authentication is required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and key information provided. The second sentence efficiently lists the coverage categories. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (listing with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what information is returned but not the format or structure. For a listing tool with filtering parameters, more detail about output format would be helpful, though the absence of an output schema means the description should ideally compensate more than it does.

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 (category with enum values and refundableOnly). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the categories covered but doesn't explain parameter usage or relationships. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 federal tax credits with eligibility, amounts, and phase-out rules.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('federal tax credits'), and scope of information provided. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_deductions' or 'check_credit_eligibility' beyond mentioning the categories covered.

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 the categories covered but doesn't explain when this listing tool should be chosen over other tools like 'calculate_eitc' (which calculates a specific credit) or 'check_credit_eligibility' (which might verify eligibility for specific credits). No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool references are provided.

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