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 the return shape, which is largely duplicated by the existing output schema, and says nothing about accuracy caveats, supported-canton limits, or what the 'note' field conveys.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact return-field list and one cross-reference sentence. The return-field enumeration is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but nothing is padded or wasteful.

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, idempotent calculator with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and return shape. Only a caveat about the limited four-canton coverage or estimate accuracy is missing, which is minor.

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%, with both parameters documented (net_wealth in CHF assets minus debts, canton enum with default geneve), so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'by canton' but no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, such as how the default canton is applied.

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 wealth tax) plus the scoping axis (by canton) and the French synonym (impot sur la fortune), which disambiguates it from the many sibling calculators such as calculate_swiss_income_tax or calculate_swiss_vat. An agent can identify exactly what this tool 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (wealth tax, not income tax, scoped per canton), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no exclusion of the other Swiss tax siblings. The pointer to 'list_bundles for finance-suisse calculators' is a discovery aid rather than selection guidance.

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