UK Data: UK business calculators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavior: the operation costs 1 credit. However, it does not state what is returned, and it is silent on the notable fact that all three inputs are optional (what happens if only daysPerWeek or only hoursPerWeek is passed, or none at all).

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 clause plus a parenthetical cost note, with no filler. The trade-off is that the brevity leaves the usage and return-value gaps unfilled, but nothing written 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?

For a three-parameter calculation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what the result looks like (entitlement in days or hours) and how the optional inputs combine. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot predict the response shape or the default behavior when parameters are omitted.

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 nominally 100%, but the schema text is near-contentless ('number', 'number 0-12'), so the baseline of 3 applies rather than a penalty. The description's phrase 'working pattern, pro rata by months' is the only thing signalling that daysPerWeek/hoursPerWeek are alternative ways to express the pattern and monthsWorked drives proration.

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?

Names a specific resource (statutory paid holiday entitlement) and its calculation basis (working pattern, pro rata by months), which separates it from sibling calendar tools like bank_holidays, public_holidays and working_days. The verb is only implied ('for a working pattern'), but the resource and scope are 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite several adjacent holiday/days siblings. An agent must infer that this computes entitlement rather than listing holidays, and gets no hint about which of the optional inputs to supply.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context that structured fields lack — the base-rate-plus-8% calculation basis and a 1-credit cost — but it says nothing about the tiered fixed compensation amounts, the treatment of a missing paidDate, or the shape of the result, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 compact clauses with zero waste; the domain and the formula are front-loaded, and the cost note is placed last where it belongs. It is lean to the point of being sparse, which is penalized under completeness rather than here.

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 four-parameter financial calculation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: whether paidDate is optional and what that implies, which jurisdiction/statute applies, and what the response contains. The formula and cost are the only completeness wins.

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 baseline is 3. The parenthetical '(base rate plus 8%)' indirectly explains what baseRateOverride replaces (the statutory base rate), which is a small genuine addition, but dueDate, paidDate and invoiceAmount semantics come entirely from 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?

Names the specific resource and computation (statutory interest plus fixed compensation on a late commercial invoice) and even states the formula, so an agent can distinguish it from generic siblings like calculate, statutory_sick_pay or redundancy_pay. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit verb, but the domain is unmistakable.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no prerequisites: it never says this applies to UK commercial (B2B) invoices, nor what happens if paidDate is omitted (accrual to today). The agent must infer the applicability from the title alone.

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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the credit cost. It omits jurisdiction, whether statutory caps/tapering apply, rounding, and what the response contains — all material for a statutory calculation with zero annotation coverage.

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 plus a clearly parenthesized cost note — nothing superfluous. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the gaps noted elsewhere.

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 simple three-input calculator with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, but it leaves the agent guessing about jurisdiction, output shape and edge cases. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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% but the schema descriptions are bare ('number, required'), so the description's mapping of age, years of service and weekly pay to the calculation adds some real meaning (units and roles). It still gives no format hints (e.g. weekly pay in GBP, whole years) beyond the parameter names.

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 names a specific resource and verb-equivalent ('Statutory redundancy pay') and states the three inputs it derives from, which is enough for an agent to recognize it as a payroll/HR calculation tool. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as statutory_sick_pay or holiday_entitlement, so it falls 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The jurisdictional scope (presumably UK statutory scheme) and the boundary versus sibling payroll tools 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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful facts an agent could not get from structured fields: the jurisdiction boundary and the billing cost of one credit. It says nothing about the return shape (single figure vs. banded breakdown), rounding, or what happens with non-numeric price strings, which matters for a calculator with no output schema.

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 covering jurisdiction, tax, and the covered regimes, with the cost note bracketed at the end so it does not interrupt the core statement. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 three-parameter calculation tool with full schema coverage, the essentials are present, and the credit cost is a nice addition. However, with no output schema the description should say what comes back (a tax figure, a banded breakdown, effective rate), and it leaves the currency and input-format expectations unstated — gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by mapping its four named categories onto the parameter space — 'non-residential' clarifies how the boolean 'residential' flag interacts with 'buyerType', a relationship the schema lists without explaining. It still does not address the price parameter's dual number/string typing or expected units.

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 names the specific tax (SDLT), the resource and scope ('a property purchase in England or Northern Ireland'), and enumerates the four rate regimes it covers, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like calculate or price_paid. What it never states explicitly is that it *computes* the liability rather than merely describing the rules, so the verb is inferred from context rather than written.

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?

Jurisdictional scoping ('England or Northern Ireland') implicitly excludes Scotland and Wales, which is a useful boundary, and the four buyer categories hint at which variant applies. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as calculate or house_price_index, and no statement of prerequisites (currency, whether fees/reliefs are included).

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; its disclosure of a one-credit cost is useful concrete information. However, it does not identify the rate source or period, rounding rules, eligibility assumptions, or other calculation behavior, and the computational nature only implies that it is non-destructive.

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 a short phrase, followed by a compact and useful cost disclosure. There is no redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 domain-specific statutory calculation with no annotations or output schema, the description omits important invocation context such as jurisdiction, applicable SSP rate or tax year, and daysPerWeek defaults. The simple schema makes the tool easy to call syntactically, but not to interpret or apply reliably.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3, and the description usefully connects weeksOff to the duration of an absence. It adds nothing about the meaning or default of daysPerWeek, and it does not resolve why that optional-looking input may affect the calculation.

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 clearly conveys that the tool produces a statutory sick pay total based on a number of weeks off. It does not explicitly say "calculate" or clarify the jurisdiction, but the purpose is readily distinguishable from related siblings such as redundancy_pay and holiday_entitlement.

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: use it when an SSP total is needed for an absence measured in weeks. There is no guidance about eligibility, applicable rates or tax years, when not to use it, or how it relates to broader payroll calculations.

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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does add one piece of real behavioral context by disclosing the 1-credit cost. It does not state what is returned (VAT amount, gross, net?), what rounding is applied, or how the add/extract direction is selected — the includesVat parameter is never explained.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the credit-cost note. Nothing is repeated 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?

For a three-parameter arithmetic utility with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input rates adequately but leaves the direction-of-calculation logic and the return shape unstated. A caller must guess what comes back and how includesVat changes the result.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does add genuine meaning by mapping 'standard' to 20% and 'reduced' to 5%, which the schema's bare 'standard|reduced|zero|number' does not, but the functionally central includesVat flag remains undefined beyond the word 'boolean'.

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 names a specific verb pair (add or extract) and a specific resource (UK VAT), plus the exact rates handled (standard 20%, reduced 5%, zero, custom). An agent can tell this is a VAT arithmetic tool, though it never names a sibling such as calculate or format_money to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'Add or extract' implies the two directions of use (VAT-inclusive vs VAT-exclusive calculations), so usage is inferable rather than stated. There is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over calculate, nor any prerequisite or exclusion noted.

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