impuesto_empresa

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

The description explains computational behavior: it applies a configurable tax rate and subtracts PPM payments to compute a saldo. This adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) which only indicate idempotent read operations. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose (tax name and country), then key variants and output concept. Each part earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., the tax amount or the saldo after PPM). While the mention of 'saldo contra PPM' hints at the output, it is not fully specified. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, simple calculation), this is a gap.

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%, but the description adds meaning by grouping parameters (e.g., 'tasa configurable' for regimen and tasa_custom, 'saldo contra PPM' for ppm_pagados). This helps agents understand the relationship between parameters beyond individual schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as computing Chile's first category tax, specifying rates (14A 27%, 14D3 25%, or custom) and the credit for PPM. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like punto_equilibrio or ratios that serve different financial functions.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description (Chilean tax calculation), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a tax regime defined) or when not to use it.

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