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. While 'compare' and 'determine' imply a calculation/analysis operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only analysis or if it might store/save results, what permissions might be needed, rate limits, or what format the comparison results take. For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a tool that performs a specific comparison function.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the comparison output looks like, how the calculation works, what assumptions are made, or how to interpret results. Given the complexity of tax deduction comparisons and the rich parameter set, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and output.

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 mentions comparing standard vs itemized deductions, which aligns with parameters like medicalExpenses, stateLocalTaxes, mortgageInterest, etc. However, with 70% schema description coverage (7 of 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema), the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already documents. It doesn't explain how these parameters interact in the comparison calculation or mention required parameters like taxYear and filingStatus.

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: comparing standard vs itemized deductions to determine which is more beneficial. It uses specific verbs ('compare' and 'determine') and identifies the resource (deduction types). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_deductions' or 'calculate_federal_tax', which might also involve deduction analysis.

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. With many sibling tools like 'calculate_federal_tax', 'list_deductions', and 'compare_filing_statuses', there's no indication of when this specific comparison tool is appropriate versus broader tax calculation tools. The description assumes the user already knows they need this specific comparison.

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