calcola_detrazione_lavoro

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 goes beyond a simple statement by detailing the 2025 deduction brackets, the gradual bonus percentages, and the decreasing deduction mechanism. It also lists the parameters with ranges and defaults. While it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid inputs or rounding rules, the main calculation logic is transparent enough for a tax calculation 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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, a bulleted list for 2025 rules, and a clean Args section. Each part serves a purpose, though the Args section repeats defaults already present in the schema (e.g., 'Default: 365'). Given that schema descriptions are absent, this repetition is justified and aids clarity, but it prevents a perfect score for conciseness.

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 four parameters, an output schema (not shown), and no annotations. The description covers the calculation rules, parameter meanings, and supported years, which is substantial. It lacks explicit details about how giorni_lavoro is applied (pro-rating) or how the calculation differs for 2023/2024, but the output schema likely covers return structure, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has no field descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains each parameter thoroughly: reddito_complessivo in euro, giorni_lavoro range 1-366 with default, tipo_reddito with explicit allowed values, and anno with supported years. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds semantics beyond the basic type/default info.

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 function: 'Calcola la detrazione per lavoro dipendente, pensione o redditi assimilati.' This provides a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'lavoro dipendente, pensione o redditi assimilati' distinguishes it from sibling tools like calcola_detrazioni_familiari_tool and calcola_irpef. The additional detail about the 2025 cuneo fiscale further sharpens the purpose.

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 when to use the tool by specifying the eligible income types and supported tax years (2023-2025). It also highlights the automatic inclusion of the cuneo fiscale for 2025, giving context for expected behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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