calculate_taxes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Calculate taxes' without disclosing whether this is a read-only calculation, whether it makes external API calls, requires special permissions, or what side effects exist. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information and is appropriately sized for a simple calculation tool.

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 no output schema, so the description should clarify what the function returns. It does not mention the return format, whether it returns a single numeric value or a breakdown, or the tax rate source. While the tool is relatively simple, this missing information leaves the context incomplete for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (amount, region, productType), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Calculate taxes for a payment based on region' clearly identifies the action (calculate taxes) and the resource (a payment) with a scoping condition (region). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling payment tools that don't compute taxes.

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 taxes for a payment, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives. Since there are no direct tax siblings, some implicit usage context exists, but it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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