what_changed_between_tax_years

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what the tool does, it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned differences. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 the tool's complexity (comparing tax years with multiple aspects) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but misses behavioral traits, output format, and deeper contextual details needed for full understanding. However, it covers the core purpose adequately for a read-oriented tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (fromYear, toYear, filingStatus) with descriptions and enum values. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how the filingStatus affects comparisons or valid year ranges. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Show all differences') and resource ('between two tax years'), listing concrete examples like bracket changes, deduction limits, credit amounts, SALT cap, CTC, and OBBB provisions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'compare_tax_years' by emphasizing comprehensive analysis of tax law changes rather than just comparison.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Great for understanding how tax law changes affect you'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools like 'compare_tax_years' or 'plan_multi_year_taxes'. The implied usage is strong but lacks explicit exclusions.

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