Parse a U.S. federal tax citation and confirm whether the named provision exists, preventing fabricated or misattributed authorities in tax writing.
Parse a citation and say whether the provision it names actually exists.
Args: citation: The citation to check, e.g. "§ 162(z)".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| citation | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core read-only behavior: parsing a citation and checking existence. However, it does not mention behavior on malformed citations, whether existence is checked against current law, or exactly what 'exists' means for a provision. The basic predicate is clear, but edge cases are not addressed.
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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. The Args section cleanly documents the single parameter with an example. Every sentence contributes value.
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 one-parameter validation tool, the description is largely complete: the parameter is explained with an example, the behavior is clear, and an output schema exists so the return shape need not be described. It could be more complete with error expectations, but nothing essential for basic invocation is missing.
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 only says 'citation' is a string with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by labeling the argument as 'The citation to check' and providing a concrete format example, '§ 162(z)'. This gives an agent useful semantic information beyond the schema, though it does not fully enumerate accepted citation formats.
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 operation: 'Parse a citation and say whether the provision it names actually exists.' This names a specific verb, resource, and outcome, making the tool's core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like verify_citations, so it stops short of 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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_irc_provision, verify_citations, or check_case. There are no conditions, exclusions, or routing hints; only a parameter example is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.