calculate_tax_from_taxable_amounts

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that inputs must be already-taxable amounts and that no gross-salary processing is involved, and it surfaces the important caveat that cantonal and federal taxable income can differ. It does not describe output structure or side effects, but this is a pure calculation tool and the output schema covers return expectations.

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 well-structured: the main action is in the first sentence, the usage trigger in the second, and the domain caveat in the third. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 10-parameter tool, the description provides the essential contextual cue that distinguishes it from calculate_tax and warns about the typical federal/cantonal discrepancy. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here. It is slightly light on family/confession parameter guidance, but those are enumerated in the schema and are standard tax inputs.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate. It does clarify the key income parameters by stating they are assessed taxable amounts, not gross salaries, and it explains the federal/cantonal distinction. However, it says nothing about tax_year, confession, relationship, or children_ages, leaving the agent to rely on schema titles and enums for many parameters.

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 opening sentence names a specific operation ('apply the tax scales') on a specific input class ('amounts already known to be taxable'). The second sentence clearly separates this tool from gross-salary-based tax calculation, which is exactly the relevant distinction among the sibling tools.

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 an explicit trigger condition: use this when the user is reading figures off a tax assessment or return rather than providing a gross salary. It also contrasts with the gross-salary alternative, effectively telling the agent which path not to take.

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