contribution_headroom

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by revealing key operational details: integer cents in and out, no division so nothing is rounded, total super balance is the prior 30 June figure, and each applied rule is listed and cited. It also disclaims that it is general information, not licensed financial service. This goes beyond a generic calculation description, though it could still mention side-effect-free/read-only behavior explicitly.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core computation is stated first, followed by precise numeric/rounding behavior and the TSB date rule, then the disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place and no structured fields are repeated.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the input side is complex and poorly documented. The description fails to explain the roles of several parameters (especially age_at_1_july and unused_concessional_cents), which are likely central to the headroom calculation. It also does not mention how financial_year or age thresholds affect the caps. An agent would struggle to provide correct input values without domain knowledge.

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 0% and there are six parameters, so the description must compensate. It provides some meaning for total_super_balance_cents ('prior 30 June figure') and the general 'integer cents' convention, but leaves age_at_1_july, financial_year, concessional_ytd_cents, non_concessional_ytd_cents, and unused_concessional_cents semantically unexplained. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to supply correct inputs.

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 states a specific calculation ('remaining room under the concessional and non-concessional caps') with a clear resource (contribution caps) and an identifiable verb ('Remaining room'). It also specifies the input basis ('from the figures given') and that cited rules are output, which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_rules or caps that merely display rules or cap amounts.

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 when to use the tool: when you already have YTD contribution figures and need to compute remaining headroom. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative might be appropriate, such as caps for static cap amounts or list_rules for rule texts. The context is clear but the exclusions and alternatives are absent.

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