Compare Micro Bic

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds useful behavioral details: it specifies the abatement rates (50% for classified, 30% for non-classified) and clarifies that all amounts are in euros. It also explains that the tool calculates taxable results and indicates the more advantageous regime, providing insight into its logic. However, it does not mention any limitations (e.g., dependence on existing data) or whether it returns a detailed breakdown vs. a summary.

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 concise, containing three sentences that all add value. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the calculation, and finally provides key legal/contextual details. No redundant or irrelevant information is present, making it highly efficient.

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 read-only comparison tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it calculates (abatement rates), and output indication. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return value's structure or content in detail. It also does not mention any dependencies on existing fiscal data or the potential need for both regimes to be available. This leaves some gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explicitly mentions 'year' via 'pour une année fiscale', but the optional 'abatement_rate' parameter is not linked to the description. The description mentions predefined abatement percentages but does not explain how the abatement_rate parameter interacts with them (e.g., as an override). This leaves the parameter's semantics unclear, especially since it is optional.

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 function: comparing the micro-BIC and actual tax regimes for a fiscal year. It specifies the verb 'compare', the resource (tax regimes), and the scope (a given year). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compute_fiscal_year or generate_tax_return, which focus on computation or filing rather than comparison.

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 when to use the tool (when a comparison between micro-BIC and actual regimes is needed) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, such as whether data for both regimes must be present, or when another tool might be more appropriate. This leaves the usage context somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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