Beregn ASK (aksjesparekonto)

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool's behavior for three scenarios and what outputs it provides (skjermingsberegning, skatteoppgjør, new state). It does not mention side effects, but as a calculation tool, this is sufficient. Could state that it does not modify data.

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?

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose and scenarios. While slightly verbose, it is front-loaded and all sentences contribute useful information. Could be tightened without losing 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?

Given no output schema, the description lists what outputs are produced (skjermingsberegning, skatteoppgjør, new state). It covers the three scenarios adequately. The parameter details are well-covered in the schema. Missing explicit return format, but acceptable 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 88%, so baseline is 3. The description adds overall context but does not enhance individual parameter meanings beyond the schema's own descriptions. No new parameter details are introduced.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Beregner') and resource ('skattekonsekvenser for en aksjesparekonto'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly stating it handles ASK-specific scenarios (ingen aktivitet, uttak, avslutning), which none of the sibling tools cover directly.

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 outlines when to use the tool: for calculating tax consequences of an ASK account with three distinct scenarios. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but context signals (sibling tools) imply usage boundaries. Lacks explicit exclusions.

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