calculate_inheritance_tax

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses that rates are cantonal and vary enormously, that spouses/direct descendants are usually exempt, that unrelated beneficiaries/unmarried partners may pay about a quarter, and that relationship outweighs amount. It doesn't discuss output shape, but the presence of an output schema covers that.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: domain context, behavioral insight, and usage modes. The only slight weakness is the opening fragment, but the overall size and front-loading are appropriate.

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 7-parameter tool with an output schema, the description gives the essential domain logic and the two main query modes without restating schema fields. It could more explicitly say that providing a specific beneficiary and location returns a single tax calculation, but the existing wording is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 moderate at 71%, and the description enriches the two most complex parameters: beneficiary (relationship matters more than amount; omitting it changes the query mode) and location (canton code/'capitals'/'switzerland' triggers ranking). Other parameters are adequately documented in 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as covering inheritance and gift tax and frames the key determinant (beneficiary relationship), so an agent can see what domain it covers. It lacks an explicit verb like 'calculates', but the tool name and first sentence make the purpose unambiguous, and the domain distinguishes it from sibling tax calculators.

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 second half gives concrete usage instructions: omit beneficiary to list all relationships for a place, or pass a canton code/'capitals'/'switzerland' to rank places for a relationship. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as calculate_tax, but the scenarios are specific enough to guide correct invocation.

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