Tax Reclaim calculator

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the return payload shape, the 500-payment cap, the 'unresolved with no amount' degradation path, and the meaning of withheld_is_estimated. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or the error behavior when both/neither input is provided.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then input modes, then return shape and edge cases — every sentence carries information. It is close to a run-on, but nothing is redundant or padded.

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 steps up and documents the returned fields (source country, treaty rate, reclaimable amount, form, deadline, per-country totals) plus the unresolved and estimated-withholding flags. Combined with the covered parameters, an agent has enough to call it and interpret results correctly.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning; the description adds the coupling that broker must accompany csv_text and enumerates the payment fields (ISIN, payment_date format, gross_amount, currency, optional withheld_amount). column_map and residence_currency handling are left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb (estimate), resource (reclaimable withholding tax across a dividend history), and scope ('a whole dividend history in one call'), which implicitly separates it from the single-refund sibling estimate_refund. An agent knows exactly what this computes without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the two invocation paths — "send either a broker export as csv_text with its broker id, or a list of payments" — which is real routing guidance the agent would otherwise have to infer. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over estimate_refund or what to do if neither input is supplied.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description does not need to restate those. It usefully adds that the result includes treaty rate, filing form, and deadline, and clarifies input formats for country codes and payment_date; it still does not describe error behavior or eligibility edge cases.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with no wasted language. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the format details are placed after the main behavior.

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 14-parameter tax estimation tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It gives useful high-level output components and two input formats, but does not explain the optional parameters that materially affect treaty-rate and refund eligibility calculations.

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 only 14%, so the description carries a heavy burden for 14 parameters. It clarifies ISO alpha-2 country codes and YYYY-MM-DD payment_date, but leaves most parameters (entity_type, holding_pct, holding_months, withheld_rate_pct, is_franked, is_portfolio_interest, etc.) without added semantic guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: estimating reclaimable withholding tax on one dividend or interest payment for a source/residence country pair. It also names the key outputs (treaty rate, filing form, deadline), though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like estimate_dividends or get_deadline.

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 its domain but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_deadline or estimate_dividends. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies that the return is a 'rule' rather than a computed date, but says nothing about what happens for unsupported countries or what the rule contains.

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 sentence with the primary lookup front-loaded and the optional qualifier trailing. No filler, nothing 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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with fully described parameters and complete annotations, the definition is nearly sufficient. It stops short of saying whether a missing/unsupported country yields null or an error, which is the one operational detail an agent would still want.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with ISO alpha-2 format and role. The description's 'source country' and 'residence (treaty partner) country ... for treaty exceptions' largely restate the schema's own wording, adding only mild framing.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a precisely scoped resource ('withholding-tax reclaim deadline rule'), qualified by source country and optional treaty partner. None of the siblings (estimate_dividends, estimate_refund, list_countries) return a deadline rule, so the resource alone disambiguates it.

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 word 'optionally' signals when the treaty_partner argument applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated precondition (e.g. only call after identifying the source country), and no mention of alternatives. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by enumerating what the response contains (countries, domestic withholding rates, payment years). It doesn't describe format, grouping, or pagination, which keeps it from a 5 with no output schema present.

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 with no filler; every clause names a distinct piece of returned data.

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 no-argument reference lookup with no output schema, explaining the returned categories is the essential job, and it does that. Minor gaps remain around how rates and years are keyed (per residence/source pair) and response shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 ('List') plus three concrete resources (source/residence countries, domestic withholding rates, reclaimable payment years), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. Its purpose is unmistakably distinct from the estimator and deadline siblings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but the mention of withholding rates and reclaimable payment years implies it is the reference lookup an agent performs before calling estimate_dividends or estimate_refund. The routing is inferable rather than stated.

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