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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data source and the split output, but it does not mention read-only behavior, error cases, or limitations such as unsupported municipalities or income values.

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 the main action and scope front-loaded, followed by a useful data-source clarification. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 covers scope, inputs, and the high-level output split even without an output schema. It could provide more detail about exact return structure and error behavior, but the schema fills most parameter 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 schema already documents all six parameters with names, defaults, enums, and ranges, so the high-coverage baseline applies. The description adds helpful context by mapping 'gross income' and 'household profile' to the schema, but it does not substantially go beyond it.

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?

States a precise operation—calculating annual Swiss income tax—and explicitly scopes it to one municipality and one household profile. The federal/cantonal/municipal split is clearly identified and differentiates it from the sibling municipality and listing 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 description implies use when tax figures are needed, and the sibling names hint at alternatives, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over others or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative routing is provided.

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