taxcredit-engine__calculate_tax_credit

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are auditable, that missing facts return indeterminate, that this is not tax advice, and includes pricing and payment details. It does not describe side effects or authorization needs, but for a computation tool this is sufficient. The description adds value beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and credit types. It is relatively concise given the amount of necessary information (credits, facts constraint, pricing, payment). The pricing and payment instructions could be considered extraneous but are directly relevant for tool usage. There is minimal waste.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, credit types, facts requirements, and pricing. However, it lacks a description of the return value (what does an 'auditable scenario' look like?) and does not direct users to related tools (e.g., list_rule_packs) for preparation. Completeness is adequate but not complete.

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. It explains the 'credit' parameter's allowed values (45Q/45V/45Y/48E/45X) and that 'facts' must be credit-specific. However, it does not elaborate on the structure of facts or describe the 'payment_ref' parameter beyond payment instructions. It adds significant meaning but leaves gaps for the facts parameter.

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 verb 'calculate' and the resource 'tax credit scenario', and specifies the supported credit types (45Q, 45V, 45Y, 48E, 45X). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_rule_packs and verify_tax_credit_result by indicating this is the main calculation function. However, explicit differentiation from siblings is not provided, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 gives implicit guidance: facts must contain credit-specific eligibility facts, and missing facts return indeterminate. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_rule_pack first), nor does it provide exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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