Home Office Deduction Calculator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool calculates and the scenarios covered, but does not mention whether the calculation is an estimate, whether it modifies data, what the output format is, or any assumptions/limitations. For a calculator, this lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and return behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is concise, clear, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope and scenarios.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the general purpose but does not describe the output (presumably a deduction amount) or any calculation assumptions. It also doesn't mention whether the tool provides a breakdown for both scenarios simultaneously or requires separate calls. There is a clear gap in behavioral context that could affect correct usage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only says 'Covers both self-employed and corporate scenarios,' which indirectly relates to boolean parameters but does not clarify how they affect the calculation. The schema itself already documents all 11 parameters, so the description adds minimal value.

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's function: 'Calculate the business deduction for using a home office.' It identifies the resource (home office) and the action (calculate deduction), and distinguishes it from other calculation tools by specifying 'Covers both self-employed and corporate scenarios.' This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiated from sibling calculators like calculate_vehicle_expense.

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 implies usage by specifying the tool's domain ('home office') and scenarios (self-employed/corporate), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions, leaving the 'when to use' guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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