calculate_tax_from_taxable_amounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as applying tax scales, which is a stateless calculation. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or has no side effects, but that is implied. It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or potential destruction. For a calculation tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a note. Every sentence provides essential information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Apply', making the purpose immediately clear.

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 tool has 10 parameters, an output schema exists, and it is a calculation tool, the description adequately covers the key usage scenario and differentiates from gross-salary-based calculation. It could be more complete by explicitly referencing the sibling 'calculate_tax' tool or describing the output format, but the output schema mitigates that need.

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 40% (4 of 10 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context for the main required parameters (taxable incomes) by explaining they come from assessment, but does not add semantic detail for the other 6 parameters. The description provides marginal value beyond the schema, but does not fully compensate for gaps.

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 applies tax scales to amounts already known to be taxable, and distinguishes from gross salary calculations. It specifies the use case (reading from tax assessment). However, it could be more explicit about differentiating from the sibling tool '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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('when the user reads figures off a tax assessment... instead of a gross salary'), providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling list includes 'calculate_tax', which an agent could infer. The note about cantonal/federal differences is helpful for understanding parameter usage.

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