US federal + state income tax

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

The description notes it is an estimate for guidance based on 2026 rates, but does not disclose limitations such as what is not included (e.g., AMT, investment income) beyond the Child Tax Credit. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and more detail on behavioral constraints would improve 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 two sentences plus an example, front-loading the main function. However, the parenthetical list of sources ('IRS/Tax Foundation/...') is verbose and could be shortened or moved to a note, slightly reducing conciseness.

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?

The description does not specify the return value structure (e.g., whether it returns federal tax, state tax, effective rate). With no output schema, more detail on the output would improve completeness. The given description is adequate but leaves gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by including an example and clarifying that stateCode is optional, and by noting the tax year (2026, post-OBBBA) which adds context beyond the schema.

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 computes US federal income tax plus estimated state income tax with a progressive bracket breakdown, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ca_income_tax' and 'us_paycheck' by specifying federal and multi-state scope.

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 includes an example but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ca_income_tax' or 'us_paycheck'. Usage context is implied through the example but lacks clear when-not-to-use guidance or differentiation from sibling tools.

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