calculate_inheritance_tax

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

The description discloses that tax varies by canton and beneficiary relationship matters more than amount. It explains two usage modes, which is good behavioral context. With no annotations, it carries the burden well.

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?

Three sentences packed with essential information, front-loading key points (cantonal variation, beneficiary importance). No wasted words.

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 inheritance tax and 7 parameters, the description covers main usage modes and key factors. It does not explain language or tax_year, but those are standard. Output schema may fill gaps.

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 71%, with language and tax_year lacking descriptions. The description adds meaning for location and beneficiary (e.g., how to use them for different views), but does not cover all parameters. It partially compensates for missing schema info.

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 calculates inheritance and gift tax, which is cantonal, and emphasizes the importance of beneficiary relationship. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_tax.

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 explicit guidance on how to use the beneficiary and location parameters: omit beneficiary to see all relationships, or pass a location to rank. It gives context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings.

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