plan_capital_withdrawals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the same-year aggregation rule, states that splitting within one year saves nothing, and warns the agent to read `caveats` in the result before acting. This gives the agent important information about the tool's model and limitations beyond what the schema provides.

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 short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the tax rationale and a practical caveat warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 13-parameter planning tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description explains the core objective, the tax rule being modeled, and directs attention to result caveats. It does not enumerate every input dependency or the returned plan structure, but the schema and output schema cover those. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the 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 description coverage is 54%, so the schema already documents several key parameters such as location, total_capital, first_year, tranches, max_tranches, years_between, and age_at_first_withdrawal. The description adds conceptual context but no per-parameter detail and does not compensate for undocumented demographic parameters like gender, confession, relationship, or number_of_children. The score reflects adequate but not exceptional parameter guidance.

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: 'Find the cheapest way to split a lump-sum withdrawal across tax years.' It clearly signals an optimization/planning tool and distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_capital_payment_tax by focusing on multi-year splitting rather than single-payment tax calculation. The objective is unmistakable.

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 establishes a clear use case: optimizing a lump-sum pension withdrawal across calendar years, and explains why splitting matters due to progressive taxation and same-year aggregation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, such as when a single-year capital payment tax calculation is needed via calculate_capital_payment_tax. The guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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