lookup_tax_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is for looking up information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured or unstructured data, or handles errors. 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and examples provided. It uses two sentences efficiently, though the second sentence could be slightly more structured. There's minimal waste, but it could be more polished.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., definitions, rules, FAQs), how results are formatted, or any limitations. For a lookup tool with no structured output, more context on behavior and results is needed to be fully helpful.

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 'topic' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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: 'Look up IRS tax rules, definitions, and common questions.' It specifies the verb ('look up') and resource ('IRS tax rules, definitions, and common questions'), and provides examples of covered topics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_irs_form_info' or 'get_tax_brackets', which also provide tax information but in different formats or contexts.

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 lists broad coverage areas but doesn't specify scenarios where this lookup tool is preferred over other tools like 'analyze_education_tax_benefits' or 'check_credit_eligibility', which might overlap in topic. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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