explain_tax_brackets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the cantonal figure is 'einfache Staatssteuer', that the amount comes from ESTV, and that the `ladder` may be absent for formula-based cantons. These specifics go beyond the generic read-only implication of 'show' and add real, useful behavioral context. It does not explicitly state that the tool makes no modifications, but the verbs and content strongly imply a non-mutating operation.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, followed by a paragraph on explanatory behavior, and a final note on an edge case. Each sentence contributes useful information without redundancy. It is not as tight as a two-sentence version, but it earns a 4 for efficiency and logical flow.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (7 parameters, 2 required, with an output schema). The description covers the core purpose, differentiates from alternatives, and discloses an important edge case (ladder absence). It does not explain the output structure, but that is covered by the output schema. It also omits explicit guidance on `tax_year` or `language`, though these are self-explanatory. Overall, an agent has enough context to choose and invoke this 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 description coverage is 57% (4 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning: it references 'the household' in connection to bracket determination, but this is already implied by the `has_children` and `relationship` parameters. The description does not clarify syntax, units, or the meaning of `ladder` absence per parameter. It adds marginal value beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 'Show the statutory rate ladder and where an income sits in it', which names a specific verb, resource, and outcome. It further differentiates itself from pure tax computation by saying 'Explains the number rather than just producing it', making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like calculate_tax.

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 conveys when to use this tool ('Explains the number rather than just producing it'), implying a contrast with calculation-only tools, but it never names an alternative explicitly or states a when-not condition. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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