Excel Finance MCP

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. It states the calculation is based on 'taxable income and filing status,' but doesn't reveal whether this uses current tax laws, includes credits/deductions, handles edge cases, or provides error handling. For a tax calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward calculation tool, with zero wasted text or redundancy.

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 complexity of tax calculations, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on tax year, algorithm assumptions, return format, error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured support, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'taxable income and filing status,' which aligns with the two parameters, but adds minimal semantics beyond naming them. It doesn't explain units for taxable income, the meaning of filing statuses, or default behaviors. With low schema coverage, the description only partially compensates, warranting a baseline score.

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: 'Calculate federal income tax based on taxable income and filing status.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('federal income tax'), and key inputs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_state_taxes' or 'calculate_self_employment_tax' beyond the 'federal' qualifier, which is why it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'calculate_state_taxes' or 'tax_projection_scenarios', nor does it specify prerequisites like tax year, applicable deductions, or jurisdiction. This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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