List 4473 dispositions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' adds no new safety information. It does add the scoping criterion (associated with Form 4473), but no other behavioral context like pagination behavior or response structure.

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 one sentence plus 'Read-only.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no filler, and every word adds 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 simple filtered-list tool with two optional pagination parameters described in the schema and read-only annotations provided, the description is sufficiently complete. It conveys the essential purpose without needing to explain return values, as no output schema exists but the expected behavior is straightforward.

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 covers both parameters (skip and take) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description itself provides no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: listing dispositions with an associated ATF Form 4473. The verb 'List' plus the specific filter distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_dispositions or list_disposition_items.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description and name—use when needing dispositions tied to Form 4473—but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., search_dispositions for broader queries).

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