estimate_tip_deduction

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: gating logic, zero output with reason_if_zero for ineligible cases, integer cents math, placeholder occupation codes, informational only status, and tax year limitations. It even mentions the specific Federal Register citation, leaving little unknown about the tool's behavior.

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 long but every sentence carries important information: gating, outputs, currency handling, placeholder caveat, disclaimer, and tax years. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and could benefit from paragraph breaks, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It lists all return fields, explains the gating factors, specifies applicable tax years, and adds verification guidance. For a complex financial calculation tool, this leaves no critical gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema: 'Inputs/outputs in US dollars; internal math in integer cents' clarifies value formats, and the explicit warning that occupation codes are descriptive placeholders not official IRS codes adds critical nuance for that parameter.

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 'Estimates the OBBBA No-Tax-on-Tips deduction' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the estimation function and explicitly mentioning gating factors that affect the estimate.

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 provides clear context about when the estimate applies (gated on occupation eligibility, sunset window, MAGI phase-out) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools like check_tip_deduction_eligibility are implied but not named, leaving usage guidance at an implied level.

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