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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the computation's outputs (basic tax amount and amount payable), implying a pure, non-destructive calculation, but it omits the assumptions that drive the result (AMT threshold, inclusion rules for overseas income) and any prerequisite conditions.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the bracketed Taiwan-crypto scope tag followed by the computation described. No filler, though the sentence is dense enough that structure is only adequate rather than exemplary.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names what the tool returns (basic tax amount and payable amount), and all four inputs are documented in the schema. For a deterministic tax calculator this is close to sufficient, missing only the tax-law assumptions behind the computation.

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% and all four parameters carry Chinese explanations, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameters, matching the baseline 3 for a fully documented 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 names a specific verb (試算/estimate) and a precise resource (Taiwan individual overseas income minimum-tax-regime basic tax and payable amount in NT$), and scopes the inputs to overseas exchange crypto gains. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling crypto tools and from creator/stocks tax calculators, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion (e.g. income-threshold conditions). Usage is only implied by the topic, which is the minimum-viable signal rather than actual guidance.

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