simulate_tax_scenario

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 mentions the tool 'shows the exact tax impact of the change', which gives some output context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data persistence, or error handling. For a complex simulation tool with 15 parameters, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key behavior. Every sentence earns its place by defining the tool's scope and output without unnecessary details or repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It adequately covers purpose and output intent but lacks details on parameter interactions, error cases, or example scenarios. For a simulation tool with no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 67% coverage. It implies parameters for income change, relocation, Roth conversion, etc., but doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how current and what-if values interact) or provide examples. With moderate schema coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate but meets the baseline.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('simulate', 'compare') and resources ('tax scenario'), distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on hypothetical changes rather than analysis, calculation, or reporting of existing tax situations. It explicitly lists example changes like income change, relocation, Roth conversion, and filing status change.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('What-if tax scenario simulator'), implying it's for comparing current vs. hypothetical tax situations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'compare_filing_statuses' or 'compare_state_taxes', which might overlap for specific scenarios.

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