regime_simulator

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond it: the comparison is at equal revenue and costs, it also reports the 15% forfettario scenario after five years, and inputs are auto-derived from receipts and the tax profile. It does not say what happens if the tax profile is unset or how the current-year projection behaves for a partial year, which keeps it below 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?

Three dense sentences that lead with the comparison and the break-even threshold before covering default inputs and the 15% variant. No filler, though the tax-profile clause is compressed enough that an agent may need a second read to see which inputs are derived versus supplied.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does it reasonably well by naming the computed figures (imposte, contributi, netto, soglia). For a read-only simulator with six optional, fully documented parameters it is nearly complete; only the precondition of a configured tax profile is unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: revenue defaults to an in-year projection from Fatture in Cloud receipts, and the coefficient, aliquota and INPS values are pulled from the fiscal profile rather than passed in. It stays silent on costs, srl_fixed_costs and local_surcharge_rate defaults, which the schema already documents.

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 precise verb and resource: compare three Italian tax regimes (forfettario, ordinario/ditta individuale, SRL unipersonale) and compute taxes, contributions, net take-home and the revenue break-even threshold. That is far more specific than the name alone. It never names an adjacent sibling such as tax_estimate or revenue_summary, however, so the agent gets no explicit disambiguation.

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 only implied: the agent learns that revenue defaults to a projection from Fatture in Cloud receipts and that the coefficient, rate and INPS come from the fiscal profile, which hints at when the tool applies. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no pointer to tax_estimate as the lighter alternative for a single regime.

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