calculate_gst_tax

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes the core logic (breakdown calculation, inter/intra-state routing) but omits behavioral details like validation requirements, error handling, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and key functionality. No redundant words; 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?

The tool has moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema). The description explains inputs and routing logic but lacks details about output structure or return format. While sufficient for basic use, it leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with GST.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions. The description adds context (seller's GSTIN, buyer's location, inter-state routing) but does not enhance individual parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Calculates' paired with the resource 'GST (CGST, SGST, IGST) breakdown' clearly defines the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (validation/lookup) by being a calculation tool.

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 for GST calculation based on transaction details, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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