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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does state what is produced (basic tax amount under the AMT plus the additional amount payable in NT$), which tells the agent this is a deterministic computation. However, it omits key behavioral assumptions: applicable tax year, the NT$6.7M exemption threshold treatment, and how crypto gains are valued/converted.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the calculation, the scope (Taiwan individual overseas income + overseas crypto gains), and the returned figures. Nothing is padded or 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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully names the two outputs, and the inputs are fully documented. What is missing is the framing a tax calculation needs — tax year/version of the rules, threshold mechanics, and valuation basis for crypto — which leaves real ambiguity for an agent invoking it.

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 all four inputs including their NT$ units are already documented. The description only indirectly maps onto the inputs via the phrase 'overseas income including crypto gains', adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb (試算/estimate) and a well-defined resource: Taiwan individual overseas income under the alternative minimum tax regime, explicitly noting that overseas exchange crypto gains are included. This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling utilities (scam-domain check, USDT/TWD premium, VASP registry).

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, no prerequisites, and no alternatives — the agent must infer the scenario entirely. The siblings are unrelated enough that routing confusion is unlikely, but that is the only mitigating factor.

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