Look up inbound-worker tax regime for a city

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint; the description adds that it is read-only with no side effects and returns both text and structured JSON. This fully discloses behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 but informative, front-loading the purpose and listing modeled regimes. Every sentence adds value, though a minor reduction in length could improve conciseness. Structurally clear.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values beyond mentioning text summary and structured JSON. It adequately covers the tool's scope, null behavior, and examples, leaving no major 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the city parameter, including guidance to use list_cities and mention of null returns. The description does not add significant new parameter-level information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 looks up a city's inbound-worker tax regime, a specific and distinct function from general cost-of-living tools. It lists modeled regimes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_city_summary or compare_cities.

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 indicates most cities return null and lists specific modeled regimes, providing clear context for when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_city_summary, so guidance on alternatives is slightly lacking.

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