calc_patent

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: read-only, deterministic, offline, no auth/network, and lists the return fields.

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?

Concise, front-loaded with formula, and each sentence adds value (usage, side effects, return structure). No fluff.

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?

Complete coverage: calculation formula, usage guidelines, side effects, and return fields. Output schema exists, so return value detail is adequate.

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% with descriptions; the additional formula and usage context in the description provide extra meaning (e.g., how contributions_paid and has_employees affect the calculation).

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 patent taxation (PSN/ПСН) cost using a specific formula, distinguishing it from sibling tax calculators (e.g., calc_usn, calc_vat).

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?

Explicitly provides 'When to use' (compare patent vs USN, use regional law potential_income) and 'When NOT to use' (eligibility limits, employee-heavy cases), with clear alternatives.

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