calculate_capital_payment_tax

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that capital withdrawals are taxed separately at a reduced rate and that the tool can either compute a single figure or rank places. Yet it doesn't specify return format, error handling, or side effects (likely none), leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 paragraphs with no filler. The description front-loads the purpose and then adds a key parameter behavior, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters and a low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the meaning of many inputs, nor what the output looks like (despite an output schema), nor constraints beyond schema min/max. The complexity warrants more detail than provided.

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 only 36%, and the description only clarifies the `location` parameter by listing valid inputs and the ranking mode. Other parameters like `gender`, `tax_year`, `confession1`, `relationship`, etc., remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 defines the tool as 'Tax on a lump-sum payout from pillar 2 or pillar 3a', which is specific and distinct from general tax tools. It also explains the separate reduced-rate taxation and the ranking mode, making the purpose immediately 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 description indicates when to use it: for capital withdrawal taxes, and how to trigger ranking via 'capitals' or 'switzerland'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like calculate_tax for regular income, so the guidance is contextual but not fully exclusive.

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