Estate and Gift Tax Exemption Calculator

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful legal context (unified rate schedule, exclusion amounts for 2025/2026, portability), but says nothing about the shape or content of the result or about edge cases like a gross estate below the exclusion.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and method, and every clause carries real content (deduction categories, rate schedule, exclusion amounts, year range). The single long compound sentence is dense but not padded; a short structural break would improve scanability.

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 should say what comes back (tax owed, marginal vs. average rate, breakdown), and it doesn't. It also omits behavior when inputs fall below the exclusion or when year is outside 2013-2026, leaving meaningful gaps for a calculation tool with six parameters.

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 every parameter is already documented with ranges and meaning; baseline is 3. The description reinforces the deduction categories and the role of adjusted taxable gifts and DSUE, but adds no per-parameter detail beyond the schema, and never mentions year handling beyond the allowed span.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Calculates US federal estate tax the Form 706 way') and enumerates the computation chain, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. Sibling differentiation is only implicit via 'Federal only' and the Form 706 framing — no sibling such as get_exemption_amounts or compare_years is named.

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?

'Federal only' and the 2013-2026 year binding imply when it is and isn't applicable (not for state estate tax, not outside that window). There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_exemption_amounts (lookup only) or compare_years (multi-year comparison), so usage must be inferred.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by naming the authoritative rule set (Rev. Procs. 2024-40, 2025-32) and disclosing what is returned (taxable gifts, Form 709 requirement, lifetime exemption used/left, gift tax due). It does not mention edge-case behavior for amounts above the lifetime exemption or how prior_taxable_gifts interacts, which keeps it from a 5.

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 verb and year range are front-loaded, and the second sentence cleanly enumerates return values, so structure is sound. The middle clause is dense with statutory dollar figures and citation numbers that partly duplicate what the tool computes anyway, making it slightly heavier than needed.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly (taxable gifts, Form 709, exemption used/left, gift tax due). With all 7 parameters covered at 100% in the schema and the governing rules and defaults named, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches semantics: it explains that amounts are per recipient, that gift_splitting doubles the exclusion to $38,000 via sec. 2513, and that spouse_citizen selects between the unlimited marital deduction and the $190k/$194k non-citizen exclusion. It does not clarify how prior_taxable_gifts feeds the lifetime exemption calculation, so it stops short of 5.

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 and resource ('Checks a gift against the federal gift tax rules for a year') and enumerates the exact rules applied (annual exclusion, sec. 2513 splitting, marital deduction, non-citizen spouse exclusion). Sibling tools like calculate_estate_tax and get_exemption_amounts are not named or implicitly contrasted, so differentiation is by inference rather than explicit statement.

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's phrasing ('Checks a gift') implies usage for a single-gift scenario with per-recipient amounts, but it never states when to prefer this over get_exemption_amounts or compare_years. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection logic are provided, so usage is only implied by the parameter shape.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it explains the default comparison pair, the 2013-2026 range, and that federal estate tax is included only when a taxable estate is provided, along with the P.L. 119-21 context for the 2026 exemption.

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 sentences and front-loads the core comparison before giving the default and legislative context. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 read-only comparison tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it lists the compared values, states the default years, and explains the optional taxable-estate behavior. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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 year_a, year_b, and taxable_estate, including defaults and ranges. The description reinforces the default 2025 vs 2026 comparison and the effect of supplying a taxable estate, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it compares two years side by side and lists the exact figures returned, including basic exclusion amount, applicable credit, annual gift exclusion, non-citizen spouse exclusion, and federal estate tax when a taxable estate is supplied. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings such as get_exemption_amounts or calculate_estate_tax.

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?

Usage is implied by the default 2025 vs 2026 comparison and the optional taxable estate, which suggests when the tool is useful. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of get_exemption_amounts or calculate_estate_tax, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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 readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable behavior beyond that: the authoritative source (IRS), the statutory basis (P.L. 119-21 sec. 70106), and an explicit warning that the 2026 figure is not the TCJA sunset, which directly guards against the most likely agent error.

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 field enumeration is front-loaded and the most decision-relevant correction (2026 is $15M, not the sunset) arrives early. The citation of specific dollar figures is somewhat dense but each figure serves as a verifiable anchor against stale model priors, so little is wasted.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description does the work of listing every returned field, which is what an agent most needs. It does not clarify the response envelope (single record for the requested year versus a table across years), leaving a small gap in what to expect back.

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 the single 'year' parameter is fully documented with range and default 2011-2026/default 2026. The description restates the range ('Years 2011-2026') but adds no new semantics such as out-of-range behavior or how partial-year data is handled, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a precise verb and a full enumeration of the values returned (basic exclusion amount, applicable credit, filing threshold, annual gift exclusion, non-citizen spouse exclusion, GST exemption, top rate), so an agent knows exactly what data it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools calculate_estate_tax, check_gift, or compare_years, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent must infer that this is the lookup tool for raw statutory figures versus the calculating/comparing siblings. The line 'Models trained before mid-2025 often predict the sunset' hints that this tool should be trusted over model memory, which is useful context but not an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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