Beregn skatt for verdipapirfond (FIFO)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: FIFO per ISIN, use of fund classification file, specific tax rules (upjustering factor 1.72, skjermingsgrunnlag formula), and acceptance of inngangs-carry for continuity. It does not mention destructive actions or auth needs, but as a calculation tool, this is sufficient.

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 packed with essential information. Every phrase adds value: tax calculation, FIFO, classification file, tax rules, carry. No unnecessary words.

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 the complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description effectively explains the tax logic and parameter roles. It could mention prerequisites like needing the classification file or output format, but it is largely complete for a calculation tool.

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 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining the role of 'transaksjoner' (transaction array), FIFO per ISIN, and 'inngangs_carry_per_isin' for continuity. However, it does not detail each parameter's syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool calculates tax for mutual funds using a transaction array and FIFO per ISIN. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_aksjegevinst (stock gains) and calculate_kryptogevinst (crypto gains) by specifying 'verdipapirfond'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions using 'fond-klassifisering.json' but provides no guidance on when this tool is appropriate compared to sibling tools like calculate_aksjegevinst or calculate_skjermingsfradrag.

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