taxcredit-engine__verify_tax_credit_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that any change in amount, fact, rule step, or source digest causes failure, offering some behavioral insight. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or any potential side effects.

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 concise, with a single informative sentence after the bracketed context. No redundant information is present. The structure is efficient, though the bracketed prefix may be a repeated pattern.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, input format, and failure condition moderately well. However, it omits details on output semantics (e.g., boolean pass/fail) and prerequisites, leaving gaps.

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 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by stating 'Pass the prior result object as JSON', clarifying that result_json should contain the full prior result. However, it does not specify the expected structure or provide examples, leaving the agent to infer the schema.

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 it verifies an engine result's audit_sha256, specifying the action (verify) and resource (tax credit engine result). The bracketed context provides domain scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling verification tools such as verify_artifact or verify_certificate.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use after a calculation, but does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons with other verify tools. The description lacks usage context.

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