Income Tax Compare Regimes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool compares two regimes and recommends the cheaper one, which is useful, but it says nothing about calculation assumptions, whether deductions are ignored in the new regime, or the output format. Given the presence of an output schema that likely documents the return shape, the remaining gap is moderate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states action, scope, and outcome without any filler. Every word 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 comparison tool with a fully documented parameter schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the recommendation behavior. It could be more complete by noting that 80C and other deductions apply only to the old regime, but that is already covered in the schema descriptions, so the description is largely adequate.

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 100%, and each parameter (age, gross_salary, deductions_80c, other_deductions) is already well described in the schema, including the old-regime-only restriction for 80C. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (compare) with two named resources (NEW vs OLD regime) for a specific period (FY 2026-27), and adds a recommendation action. Clearly distinguishes from siblings income_tax_new_regime and income_tax_old_regime, which each only compute one regime.

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 implies this is the tool to use when the user wants a regime comparison or recommendation, which naturally differentiates it from the single-regime siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when deciding between regimes; use income_tax_new_regime instead if you only need one side', so it stops just short of explicit alternatives.

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