Compare Micro Bic

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral details like calculation logic and specific abatement rates (50% for classified furnished, 30% for non-classified). No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds critical rate details. Optimal length.

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?

Covers core behavior and rates but omits return value information and prerequisite conditions (e.g., need for fiscal year data). Given lack of output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially explains parameters: it mentions 'year' implicitly and provides default abatement rates. However, it does not clarify that 'abatement_rate' is an optional override 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 it compares micro-BIC and réel regimes, calculates taxable income, and indicates the more advantageous regime. It specifies abatement rates for different accommodation types, making it distinct from sibling tools like compute_fiscal_year or compute_tva.

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 usage for fiscal year comparison but does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., having financial data) or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned, though the tool is unique among siblings.

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