ingest_26as

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for a write operation. It never says whether ingesting replaces or appends to existing Form 26AS data, whether repeat calls are idempotent, whether validation failures reject the whole payload, or what a successful call yields. The second sentence merely restates the schema's own $defs description ('Lists TDS and TCS credits by deductor').

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the precondition attached directly to the resource. The trailing sentence is duplicated verbatim from the schema and earns nothing, but the overall footprint is small.

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?

This is a mutating ingest tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not cover overwrite semantics, idempotency, validation behavior, or the result of a successful call. For a persistence step in a tax-filing pipeline, those omissions leave an agent unable to predict the consequences of calling it.

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?

There is only one parameter, whose nested structure the schema already fully types (required assessment_year with pattern and example, TDS/TCS credit arrays). The description adds only the mapping precondition, not any field-level meaning such as how amounts should be normalized or that assessment_year drives period selection.

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?

States a specific verb-plus-resource pair ('Store a Form 26AS') and names the target schema, so an agent can tell it apart from the other ingest_* siblings by document type without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with ingest_ais or ingest_form16, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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 phrase 'that you have read and mapped into the Form26ASData schema' implies a precondition (extraction/mapping must happen first), which is useful sequencing guidance. It gives no when-not-to-use conditions, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of what to do on schema mismatch.

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