calculate_state_taxes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool calculates taxes but doesn't mention whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., tax amount, breakdown). For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Calculate state income tax for supported states'. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, conveying the core purpose without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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 the complexity of tax calculation, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (33%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, output format, error cases, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It implies 'state' and 'taxableIncome' are key inputs but doesn't explain their roles or constraints. With schema description coverage at 33% (only 'state' has a description), the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'taxableIncome' and 'filingStatus' parameters. However, the schema's enums and default provide some structure, keeping it at baseline.

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 purpose: 'Calculate state income tax for supported states'. It specifies the verb ('calculate'), resource ('state income tax'), and scope ('supported states'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_federal_income_tax' or 'calculate_payroll_taxes', though the 'state' focus is implied.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'supported states' but doesn't specify which states are supported (though the schema's enum provides this), nor does it explain prerequisites, limitations, or how it differs from other tax calculation tools in the sibling list. Usage is implied by the name and parameters alone.

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