Compare old vs new tax regime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with no side effects. The description adds that it computes and returns a comparison, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output format or handling of defaults. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description's incremental transparency is minimal.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core purpose and output, the second gives a key usage hint. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description effectively explains the tool's purpose and usage. However, it could be improved by mentioning that all parameters have defaults (so no required inputs) and what the return structure looks like (though the title implies a comparison).

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only hints that deductions are ignored under new regime, which is already stated in the schema description for deductions.

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 clearly states 'Compute tax under BOTH regimes for the same income and return a side-by-side comparison with the recommended regime and the savings amount.' It specifies a specific verb ('compute'), resource ('tax under both regimes'), and deliverable ('comparison, recommendation, savings'). This distinguishes it from siblings like compute_tax (likely single regime).

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?

The description gives a usage hint: 'Pass the old-regime deductions you could actually claim; the new regime ignores them.' This implies when to use (comparison) and what to provide. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like compute_tax for single-regime calculations.

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