estimate_mf_tax

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the rate logic (20% STCG, 12.5% LTCG above remaining exemption, slab rate for debt/other) and two important scope limits ('Excludes surcharge and loss set-off') plus a professional-confirmation caveat. It does not state precision/rounding behavior or that results are estimates only in a numeric sense, so not a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then input modes, then rate rules, then caveats — no filler. Slightly telegraphic in places ('remaining annual exemption'), but every sentence carries decision-relevant content.

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 an 8-parameter, unannotated estimation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the inputs that matter for correctness (holding period determination, fund classification, exemption handling) and the known omissions (surcharge, set-off). Only minor gaps remain around defaults and validation of date formats.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the holding_days vs. purchase_date/sale_date trade-off, reveals the accepted fund_type values ('equity', 'debt', 'other') that the schema leaves as an unconstrained string, and clarifies that slab_rate_pct applies to debt/other and that ltcg_exemption_available is a consumable annual exemption. purchase_amount/sale_amount are self-evident, though defaults (slab_rate_pct=30, exemption=125000) are not restated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Estimate capital gains tax on a mutual fund redemption') plus the governing rule set (FY 2026-27). This is clearly distinct from sibling calculators like calculate_xirr or calculate_sip_returns, which compute returns rather than tax liability.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to supply the holding period: 'Supply holding_days, or both purchase_date and sale_date for exact calendar holding-period classification.' It gives clear input-selection guidance but does not name when to prefer this tool over siblings or note prerequisites such as the need for a redemption scenario.

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