calculate_income_tax

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it uses real Finance Act 2025 slabs, includes Section 87A rebate, surcharge, cess, returns a slab-by-slab breakdown, and recommends a cheaper regime. It also notes the limitation that deductions only apply to the old regime. This gives the agent a precise understanding of what the tool does and returns.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the key output and a caveat on deductions. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy or irrelevant details, making it an exemplary concise and well-structured description.

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 the complexity of Indian income tax, the description covers the essential context: the specific FY/AY, regimes, components included (rebate, surcharge, cess), and output format. Even without an output schema, it explicitly states that a slab-by-slab breakdown and a recommendation are returned. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% parameter description coverage, including details like caps and the fact that deductions are old-regime only. The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states. Thus it meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb phrase ('Calculate and compare Indian income tax') and resource ('under the OLD vs NEW regime for FY 2025-26'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like optimize_deductions and estimate_capital_gains by focusing on regime comparison and providing actionable output.

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 for when to use the tool (Indian income tax calculation for FY 2025-26, with both regimes) and highlights a key caveat (deductions only apply to old regime). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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