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 tool calculates tax but doesn't reveal critical details: whether it's a read-only calculation or has side effects (e.g., saving results), if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a financial 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Calculate self-employment tax') and adds clarifying detail ('Social Security and Medicare') efficiently. Every element earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., tax amount, breakdown by Social Security/Medicare), assumptions (e.g., current tax year, rates), or limitations. For a tool with no structured output and behavioral gaps, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('netEarnings') clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., tax year, deductions, or thresholds). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 self-employment tax (Social Security and Medicare)'. It specifies the verb ('calculate') and resource ('self-employment tax'), making it unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_federal_income_tax' or 'calculate_payroll_taxes', which are related but distinct tax calculations.

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 prerequisites (e.g., for self-employed individuals), contrast it with other tax calculation tools in the list (e.g., 'calculate_federal_income_tax'), or specify scenarios where it's applicable. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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