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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the educational nature of the estimate and lists what is not modeled (commune surcharges, deductions), adding context about scope and limitations. However, it does not describe the output format or edge-case behavior (e.g., capital losses), preventing a perfect score.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by scope and limitations. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 complex tool covering 26 cantons with holding-period adjustments and deferral options, the description gives essential context: scope, key components, and limitations. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., tax amount in CHF) and how to interpret results, which is notable given there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 description coverage is 50%: sale_price and purchase_price are not mentioned in the description, though their names are self-explanatory. The description adds meaning for years_held ('holding-period adjustments') and Ersatzbeschaffung ('replacement-residence deferral'), but does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters or clarify their precise role in the calculation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and a precise resource ('Swiss cantonal real-estate capital gains tax') for a property sale. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling FIRE/portfolio tools by targeting a niche Swiss tax calculation, covering all 26 cantons.

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?

Clear context is provided: the tool estimates Swiss cantonal capital gains tax with holding-period adjustments and Ersatzbeschaffung deferral. The limitation 'Educational estimate; commune surcharges and value-enhancing-improvement deductions are not modeled' signals when not to rely on it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria beyond these limitations.

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