trybiut_tax_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two behavioral traits: it is approximate ('basic estimate') and requires no login (public demo). It does not cover traits such as whether data is persisted, rate limits, or response shape, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the function, the second the auth/demo context. Key information is front-loaded with no redundant words.

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 low-complexity, one-required-parameter demo endpoint with 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it names the result, the auth requirement, and the approximate nature. There is no output schema, so a brief note on the exact return shape would make it fully complete, but the gap is minor.

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?

All three params are already documented in the schema with examples and defaults (income, country, legalForm). The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the phrase 'yearly tax savings,' so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('estimate') on a clear resource ('yearly tax savings') and adds that it is a public demo endpoint. It is distinct from trybiut_tax_calculate in spirit, but it never names an alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

'Public demo endpoint, no login needed' gives the agent a clear condition for use: quick, unauthenticated demo calls. It implies heavier tax-calculation tools exist for authenticated or accurate work, but it does not explicitly say when-not-to-use or name the alternative.

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