svs_schaetzung

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two behavioral traits: the result is 'grob' (approximate) and 'unverbindlich' (non-binding). It says nothing about side effects, permissions, or what the response contains, which is a meaningful gap for a zero-annotation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the estimate, the year, the input basis, and the caveat, with no filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter computation the essentials are present, but with no output schema the description could state what the estimate returns (a single contribution amount, a breakdown by branch). It also leaves unclear whether 'SVS' is the Austrian social insurance institution and which 2026 rates apply.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It does identify the single parameter's meaning implicitly as the annual profit used as input, but adds no detail on whether it is gross/net or pre-tax profit, or the expected magnitude/units.

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 gives a specific verb (estimate) and resource (SVS-Beitragsschätzung 2026) plus the basis of the calculation (Jahresgewinn). It is clear what the tool computes, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling 'svs_werte' (actual values vs. estimate).

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?

There is no statement of when to use this estimate versus 'svs_werte', no prerequisites, and no exclusions. 'unverbindlich' is a liability caveat about accuracy, not guidance on tool selection.

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