estimate_capital_gains

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool uses live NAV when schemeCode is provided, applies specific tax rates (STCG 20%, LTCG 12.5% with exemption, debt slab rates), and bases rules on fund type and holding period. It does not mention output format or edge cases, but the provided behavioral details exceed basic expectations.

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 concise sentences with clear front-loading of purpose. Every sentence contributes: purpose and timing, tax rule specifics, and the two valuation modes. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and complexity around tax rules. The description covers main usage modes and tax categories but omits what the returned estimate looks like (e.g., breakdown, status messages) and does not clarify hybrid fund handling beyond mentioning fund types. Given the lack of output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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 by explaining the relationship between schemeCode and currentValue (live vs manual) and linking fundType to equity/debt tax rules. This enriches parameter understanding.

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: estimating capital-gains tax before selling a mutual fund, with specific FY 2025-26 rules. It also distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on capital gains rather than general income tax or fund returns, and mentions specific modes (schemeCode vs currentValue).

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?

It provides clear context: 'before selling/redeeming a mutual fund' and explains two valuation approaches (live NAV via schemeCode or manual currentValue). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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