Calculer Tva

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose one important trait: rates come from a built-in table of official African country rates rather than being supplied by the caller. It says nothing about what happens for unsupported countries, rate-table coverage, rounding, or whether taux_personnalise overrides type_taux.

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 short sentences that front-load the core purpose, with no filler. The only inefficiency is that the French and English lines are verbatim restatements rather than complementary detail.

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?

Five parameters, two enums, and an output schema means the return values need no explanation, and the schema covers the inputs. Still missing are the behaviors an agent needs to call it correctly: precedence of taux_personnalise, behavior for an unrecognized country, and rounding convention.

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 every parameter, including both enums, is documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the framing that 'pays' keys into an official rate table; it never disambiguates mode or the precedence between taux_personnalise and type_taux.

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?

Names a specific verb (calcule) and a specific output set (TVA et montants HT/TTC), plus a scope qualifier (taux officiels du pays africain) that tells the agent where the rates come from. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as convertir_devise or formater_montant, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions the siblings it overlaps with (currency conversion, amount formatting). It also does not say when to prefer type_taux over taux_personnalise, leaving the caller to guess.

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