calculate_company_tax

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context about cantonal rate variation and location-driven ranking, but does not mention read-only behavior, defaults, or how the tax result is structured. The output schema helps, but the description itself is somewhat minimal.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second gives the most important usage pattern without redundant detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 large 12-parameter schema, a detailed output schema, and strong per-parameter descriptions, the tool description does not need to explain every field. It supplies the missing context: what the tool is for, who it targets, and how to invoke the ranking mode. It could have been more explicit about sibling distinctions, but is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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 high at 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that location values like canton codes, 'capitals' and 'switzerland' trigger ranking, and by framing the calculation around company profit and capital taxes.

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 states the tool computes profit and capital tax for companies (GmbH, AG or similar), which distinguishes it from personal-tax siblings like calculate_tax. It also hints at a ranking behavior via location, adding functional clarity beyond the tool name alone.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: pass a canton code, 'capitals' or 'switzerland' as location to rank places, and notes this is the usual reason to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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