Vehicle Expense Deduction Calculator

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It lists features but does not reveal calculator behavior, assumptions, return format, or any side effects. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the schema already provides.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every phrase adds value.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain what the calculator returns, what assumptions underlie the calculation, or how the handling of CCA and benefits affects inputs. The schema covers parameter descriptions but not overall behavior or output.

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?

All 11 parameters have individual descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about CCA and benefits but does not map these to specific parameters or provide additional parameter-level nuance.

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 opens with a clear action and resource: 'Calculate deductible vehicle expenses for business use.' It then lists specific areas handled (CCA, standby charges, operating benefits, per-km allowances), which distinguishes it from related tools like calculate_cca or calculate_home_office.

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 provides a clear context for use (business vehicle expenses) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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