Estate Freeze Planner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool covers two specific tax methods, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not describe the nature of the output (e.g., a report, calculations), whether it reads or modifies data, or any side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency for a planning tool.

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 concise sentences that immediately state the purpose and key coverage. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool produces or how the plan is delivered. It does not specify the output format or execution behavior, leaving some ambiguity. However, it does set clear expectations about the purpose and methods, which is adequate but not 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?

The input schema covers all 6 parameters with clear descriptions and defaults, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already documents semantics thoroughly, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Plan an estate freeze') with a defined objective ('lock the current owner's value and shift future growth to the next generation'). It further distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific methods (Section 86 and Section 85), making it unique among related tools like reorganization_advisor or asset_vs_share_sale.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it: when planning an estate freeze. The mention of Section 86 and 85 rollovers gives a sense of the method scope. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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