plan_multi_year_taxes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool creates ('projection and strategy') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a simulation vs actual filing, what permissions are needed, whether results are saved, error conditions, or output format. For a complex planning tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, the second enumerates key modeled components. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 multi-year tax planning tool with 3 parameters (including a nested array), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output contains, how projections are calculated, limitations, or prerequisites. The description alone leaves too many unknowns for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 beyond the schema: it explains the tool models 'income changes, Roth conversions, retirement contributions, and bracket management across multiple years,' which helps interpret the parameters. With only 33% schema description coverage (only 'year' and 'expectedIncome' have descriptions), the description partially compensates by clarifying the overall modeling purpose.

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 specific action ('Create a 3-5 year tax projection and strategy') and resource (tax planning), with explicit scope ('3-5 year', 'multi-year'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on long-term projection rather than single-year calculations or specific benefit analyses.

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 '3-5 year tax projection and strategy' and lists modeled components (income changes, Roth conversions, etc.), suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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