plan_retirement_withdrawals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by disclosing the analytic behavior — it computes a draw-order strategy rather than producing a single tax number — and states the optimization objective. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the headline purpose, the second supplies the concrete methodology (draw order, account types, optimization goal). Every clause earns its place, and the structure leads with the most decision-relevant information.

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 an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), rich safety annotations, and 90% parameter coverage, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool. The only gap is silence on model assumptions — e.g., whether RMDs, state taxes, or future tax-law changes are modeled — which is useful but not essential for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 90%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description adds modest linkage value by naming the account types that map to traditionalBalance, rothBalance, and taxableBalance, which helps an agent map inputs to the strategy. This sits at the baseline for high-coverage schemas; no parameter syntax or format detail is needed beyond what the schema provides.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Plan'/'Determines') with a precise resource — the optimal withdrawal order across Traditional IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable accounts — and a measurable objective: minimize lifetime tax. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like calculate_total_tax or simulate_tax_scenario, and the account-type specificity prevents confusion with the more generic get_retirement_strategy.

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 use case is implied by the description: an agent would select this when asked to plan tax-efficient retirement withdrawals. However, it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives — notably, get_retirement_strategy and simulate_tax_scenario are nearby siblings that could plausibly compete for the same request, and no routing criterion is given.

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