calculate_saudi_zakat_citizen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that this is a simplified estimator and returns a zakat due with a disclaimer. It does not mention side effects or authorization needs, but as a read-only calculation tool, this is acceptable. Slightly more detail on the calculation's non-authoritative nature would enhance transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and an example query. Every sentence adds value—first sets context, second explains input and output behavior, third gives a concrete usage example. No redundant or verbose language.

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 simple calculator with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input, and output (zakat due with disclaimer). However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., number, string with disclaimer). Adding a note on output structure would make it complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a clear description ('adjusted equity per ZATCA'). The tool description adds an example and reiterates 'pre-computed zakat base', but does not provide substantial new semantics beyond the schema. Hence, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states that the tool estimates Zakat for Saudi/GCC nationals using a simplified 2.5% rate, distinguishing it from more general zakat calculators (e.g., calculate_zakat sibling). The verb 'estimate' and specific resource 'ZATCA-collected Zakat' make the purpose 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 specifies that the caller must supply a pre-computed zakat base and includes a disclaimer that actual ZATCA computation requires full financial statements, setting expectations for when to use the tool (simple estimates) and when not (official filings). It could be improved by explicitly mentioning the sibling calculate_zakat as an alternative for non-Saudi/GCC cases.

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