Beregn inntektsskatt

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it calculates multiple tax components, supports various income types and deductions, and shows all intermediate calculations. This is comprehensive for a calculation tool, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states what it calculates, second lists supported types, third lists deductions and mentions intermediate calculations. No redundant information.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the main behavior and inputs but lacks details about the return format (beyond mentioning between calculations), constraints like the year limitation (only 2025), or error handling. For a complex tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 73%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description groups deductions together but adds little semantic value beyond the schema. For example, 'andre_fradrag' and 'bsu_innskudd' are already described in the schema. The marginal benefit is low, resulting in an average score.

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 it calculates three specific types of income tax (alminnelig inntektsskatt, trinnskatt, trygdeavgift) and specifies supported income types (lønn, pensjon, næring). This is a distinct tool compared to sibling tools like calculate_boliggevinst or calculate_formuesskatt, ensuring unambiguous purpose.

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 lists supported income types and optional deductions, providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context from sibling tools suggests it is for Norwegian income tax calculation. The guidance is strong but lacks explicit exclusions.

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