compute_tax

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real behavior — dual-regime calculation for comparison — but says nothing about whether the operation is a pure read/computation or persists anything, which assessment year or profile it assumes, or which stored data it draws on given the tool takes zero parameters.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the comparative scope is stated immediately and nothing is repeated from the name.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, but for a zero-argument computation tool with no annotations the description should explain where the inputs come from and what must precede the call. An agent cannot tell from this text whether calling it cold will fail, so the definition is incomplete relative to the tool's role in the pipeline.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because there is none to add; the notable omission is explaining the implicit data source, which is a behavioral rather than a parameter concern.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Compute tax liability') plus a distinguishing scope ('under both the old and new regime for comparison'), which clearly separates it from sibling calculators like compute_capital_gains and compute_deductions. It stops short of explicitly naming the siblings it supersedes, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_tax_rules, compute_deductions, or validate_itr, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., that ingestion/validation should happen first). Usage is only implied by the word 'Compute'.

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