2026 SEP IRA vs Solo 401(k) max contribution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the calculation basis (IRS Pub. 560 rate worksheet), pins the 2026 limits that drive the result ($72,000 total, $24,500 deferral, $8,000 catch-up at 50+, $11,250 at 60-63), and flags the output as an estimate with a legal disclaimer. It does not describe what the response contains or how the SEP vs Solo 401(k) comparison is presented, which is the remaining gap.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short disclaimer, with the plan comparison front-loaded and the numeric limits compactly parenthesized. The only waste is the garbled opening and the mildly cryptic 'rate worksheet' reference; nothing is padded.

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 self-contained calculation tool with a fully described schema, one required parameter, and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it: the year, the plan types, the statutory limits, the estimate disclaimer, and the data source. Return-value detail is the only omission, and without an output schema that is a minor cost for a deterministic calculator.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds indirect meaning by quoting the contribution and catch-up limits, which explains why age_group has under50/50plus/60to63 bands and why the totals cap out, but it never ties inputs to the computation (e.g., how net_profit vs w2_wages interact with the Social Security wage base).

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 resource and scope are specific: maximum 2026 SEP IRA vs Solo 401(k) contribution for a sole proprietor or single-member LLC, plus estimated income tax saved. The opening clause is grammatically broken ('Most a sole proprietor...' appears to be missing 'Maximum'), and the verb is implied rather than stated, but the calculation target and the two compared plan types are unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like tax_figures or self_employment_tax.

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 is implied by the subject matter (self-employed retirement plan comparison) and the closing caveat 'Planning estimate, not tax or investment advice' sets a scope boundary. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus siblings such as estimate or tax_figures, and no note that it is limited to sole proprietors/single-member LLCs (not S-corp or multi-employee contexts) beyond the loose opening phrasing.

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