calculate_tax

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses ESTV's detailed model and derives social-insurance contributions and standard deductions from gross figures, which is beyond what the schema reveals. This helps the agent understand the calculation behavior and why certain inputs suffice. No contradictions with annotations (none provided), so score is limited by not describing output format or edge cases, but behavioral context is solid.

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 two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second paragraph explains the model and gives actionable guidance. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition or fluff. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan.

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's complexity (16 parameters) and low schema coverage, the description is not fully complete. It communicates the high-level model and the optional deduction flow but does not explain how to set parameters like relationship, confession, children_ages, or how to interpret location. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the input attribution for many parameters remains unclear. It is adequate for a high-level overview but lacks depth for a complex tool.

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 44%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains that income, wealth, and family situation are the core inputs, and that deductions are optional overrides from list_deductions. However, it does not explain parameters like age, children_ages, relationship, confession, or location, leaving many parameters under-specified. It adds value for the deductions and overall model but doesn't fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Compute federal, cantonal, municipal and church tax for a household.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_tax_from_taxable_amounts, which computes from taxable amounts, and other tax tools. The scope (household) and the authoritative model (ESTV) are also explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit guidance to call `list_deductions` first when real deductions are needed, which is a clear alternative/ prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly contrast with `calculate_tax_from_taxable_amounts` or other siblings, so the agent must infer when to use this tool instead. The context 'you only need income, wealth and family situation' implies this is the right tool for gross-figure inputs, but the exclusion of alternatives is not stated.

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