irs-taxpayer-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool 'determines optimal order' (implying analytical/read-only behavior), it doesn't clarify whether this is a simulation, calculation, or recommendation tool. It lacks critical behavioral details like whether it performs actual transactions, requires authentication, has rate limits, or provides actionable steps versus theoretical analysis.

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 with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with the specific optimization goal. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the 'what' and 'why' well but lacks information about the tool's output format, computational assumptions, limitations, or how results should be interpreted. Given the sophistication of retirement tax planning, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

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?

With 90% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the tool's purpose is to 'minimize lifetime tax' through account sequencing, which helps interpret why parameters like account balances, income sources, and Roth conversion interest are needed. This elevates understanding beyond the schema's technical parameter descriptions.

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 ('plan tax-efficient retirement withdrawals') and resource ('Traditional IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable accounts'), with a precise goal ('minimize lifetime tax'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_retirement_strategy' or 'optimize_capital_gains' by focusing specifically on withdrawal sequencing rather than general strategies or capital gains optimization.

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 ('retirement withdrawals') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_retirement_strategy' or 'plan_multi_year_taxes'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the purpose alone.

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