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 one genuinely useful behavioral fact — cantonal tax is an estimate — and enumerates return fields, but says nothing about precision, canton coverage limits, or assumptions.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded. The inline return-field list is partly redundant since an output schema exists, but it is compact and gives an immediate sense of output shape.

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 rich annotations, a fully described 2-parameter schema, and an output schema present, the description only needed to state scope and flag the cantonal estimate — both of which it does. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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%: 'income' (annual taxable income in CHF, min 0) and 'canton' (four-value enum, default geneve) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 ('Calculate Swiss income tax') plus the computation scope ('federal + estimated cantonal tax'), which distinguishes it from calculate_swiss_wealth_tax and calculate_swiss_vat. It does not explicitly disambiguate from sibling calculate_swiss_salary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 only guidance is 'See list_bundles for related finance-suisse calculators', which points to a discovery endpoint rather than stating when to use this tool versus a specific alternative. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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