Calculate Tax

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the return content (tax rate, tax name, reverse-charge flag) which compensates for the missing output schema, but says nothing about edge cases such as jurisdiction-specific requirements, failure modes, or latency/auth considerations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the purpose first, the return shape second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back, and the 100%-covered input schema handles the inputs. It misses only operational edge cases (e.g. that postal code is mandatory for US) which the schema partly covers.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the main input categories (location, product type, tax ID) without adding syntax or value constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Calculate the applicable tax rate for a transaction') with an explicit basis (customer location, product type, optional tax ID). It is clearly distinguished in kind from its siblings (validate_tax_id, create_invoice), though it never names or routes against them.

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?

Usage is implied by the description—you call it to determine a transaction's tax treatment—but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or relationship to validate_tax_id, which an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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