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 the tool 'analyzes' and 'suggests', implying it's a read-only advisory function, but doesn't clarify whether it actually executes trades, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the suggestions take. The behavioral characteristics are underspecified for a tool with significant financial implications.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's function and key considerations. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex financial optimization tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic orientation but lacks important contextual details. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (suggestions format), computational limitations, or error conditions. The description is complete enough to understand the tool's purpose but insufficient for fully informed usage.

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?

The description adds meaningful context about what the tool considers (long-term vs short-term, 0% bracket space, loss harvesting, wash sale rules) that helps interpret the input schema parameters. With 80% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 3, but the description provides additional semantic understanding of how parameters like 'lots' and 'targetGainOrLoss' are used in the optimization algorithm.

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 with specific verbs ('analyze', 'suggest', 'sell') and resources ('investment lots'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on capital gains optimization rather than education benefits, mortgage analysis, or other tax topics. It goes beyond the tool name by explaining the analytical approach.

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 implies usage context through the mention of tax considerations (long-term vs short-term, wash sale rules), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'simulate_tax_scenario' or 'plan_multi_year_taxes'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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