plan_capital_withdrawals

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that payouts within the same calendar year are aggregated before tax, and that the tool searches for the cheapest split. It also warns to read caveats. However, it does not disclose side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 four sentences with a front-loaded purpose statement. Every sentence adds value: purpose, rationale, caveat, and an instruction to read results. No redundancy.

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?

The tool has 13 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core logic (progressive tax, within-year aggregation) and advises reading caveats. It does not describe the output format, but the existence of an output schema mitigates this. A minor gap is not detailing how 'cheapest' is determined.

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 54%, so the description partially compensates by giving context about total_capital, first_year, and age_at_first_withdrawal through the narrative. But it does not explain parameters like gender, language, or location beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Find the cheapest way to split a lump-sum withdrawal across tax years.' It uses a specific verb ('find'), a specific resource ('cheapest way to split'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'calculate_capital_payment_tax' by focusing on multi-year optimization.

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?

It explains when to use the tool (when withdrawing a pension pot) and warns against splitting within a year because it saves nothing. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it (e.g., for a single-year calculation).

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