deduction_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explains that the tool sweeps a budget line, reports tax saved at each level plus marginal saving per franc, and also shares a non-obvious behavioral trait: progressive rates make the last franc worth more, and the return flattens at bracket boundaries. This gives the agent a mental model of the tool's output dynamics.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. The first states the purpose, the second explains the mechanism, and the third illuminates the progressive-rate behavior. It is front-loaded with the core value proposition and contains no fluff or redundancy.

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 (17 params, output schema present), the description provides a coherent overview of what the tool does and how the sweep works. It does not detail every parameter, but the schema covers required fields and the output schema covers return structure. The only minor omission is explicit mention of household inputs, but the description's focus on the deduction sweep is sufficient for an agent to understand the core intent.

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 41%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented params. It does add context around key parameters: 'pillar 3a by default' clarifies deduction_id, and 'sweeps a budget line' clarifies amounts and max_amount. However, many household parameters (age, confession, children, etc.) remain unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Measure what a deduction is actually worth to this household.' It goes on to explain the sweep of a budget line and reporting of tax saved, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like calculate_tax or list_deductions. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to understand the value of a specific deduction to a household. It provides context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions; however, the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the right scenario. No misleading guidance is present.

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