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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds real behavior beyond the name: the tax is split into federal, cantonal and municipal parts and the figures come from the federal tax administration's calculation. It does not state limitations or side-effect information, but for a read-only lookup this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and output structure; the second adds the authoritative data source. Both sentences earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the return shape at a useful level (three tax components) and identifies the data source. It leaves minor gaps such as not explicitly connecting bfId to municipality_search, but the schema and sibling context largely fill these for invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters with meaningful descriptions. The description adds little beyond confirming the 'gross income' basis, which the income parameter already states; it does not need to repeat schema detail.

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 names a specific verb ('Calculates') and resource ('annual Swiss income tax for one municipality and one household profile'), and further details the output as federal, cantonal and municipal parts. This clearly distinguishes tax_lookup from sibling search, listing, commute, and municipality tools.

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 intended use is implied ('Calculates the annual Swiss income tax for one municipality and one household profile'), but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as favorable_municipalities or listing_search, and no when-not-to-use cases.

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