calcola_oneri

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses several behaviors: the €129.11 franchise for health expenses, automatic €260 reduction for high incomes, and an extensive list of accepted expense types. However, it fails to mention output structure and contains a factual discrepancy (default year 2024 vs schema's 2025), which slightly undermines 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 well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a behavioral note, an Args section, and an enumerated list of allowed types. It is somewhat long, but every sentence adds needed detail given the tool's complexity. The list of 15 expense types is essential and not bloated.

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 complex tax calculation tool, the description covers a wide range of expense types, the main calculation rule, and parameter shapes. The output schema (not shown here) likely explains return values, so that omission is acceptable. However, the default year mismatch and the lack of error-handling details (e.g., invalid 'tipo') are gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly: it explains reddito_complessivo (euros), spese (list of dicts with tipo/importo/note), and anno (default 2024, though schema says 2025). It also provides the list of allowed 'tipo' values, which is absent from the schema. The incorrect default year is the main flaw.

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 it calculates deductions and deductions for Quadro E expenses, listing specific categories and a precise rule for income over €50,000. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calcola_irpef (IRPF) and calcola_detrazioni_familiari (family deductions), which focus on different tax domains.

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 use when calculating deductions for the listed expense types but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as verifica_spesa_detraibile or calcola_irpef. It lacks direct 'use this when' or 'use that instead' guidance, though the domain is clear.

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