tax_us.state_tax

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: TX returns 0, NY uses a recapture worksheet above a state_agi threshold, CA applies an extra 1% above 1,000,000, and rounding defaults to HALF_UP. These details materially affect how an agent should interpret and trust the result.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core calculation, then adds state-specific rules, formatting, and exclusions. Every sentence carries useful domain information.

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 output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the main calculation rules, supported states, formatting, and exclusions. It is not fully complete because year support ranges are only partially specified and some optional parameters remain ambiguous.

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 description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, and the description compensates for only some of them: state, year, filing status, state_agi, taxable income, decimals, and rounding are at least implied. It leaves optional parameters such as as_of, include_proposed, and the exact role of apply_standard_deduction unexplained, so clear gaps remain.

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 verb and resource: calculates US state income tax for CA, NY, and TX. It also distinguishes the scope from neighboring tax tools by saying local taxes and FICA are not included.

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 clearly establishes when the tool applies: state income tax for CA, NY, or TX, with special notes for TX zero tax, NY recapture, and CA additional tax. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as tax_us.federal_income or tax_us.fica, but the exclusion of FICA and local taxes gives useful routing context.

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