calculate_professional_tax

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the main behavioral traits. The description adds 'Calculate' which aligns with read-only. No additional behavioral details (e.g., data source, state coverage) are disclosed beyond annotations, so the description meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence defines the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place, making it ideally succinct.

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's simplicity (2 required parameters), an output schema exists to describe return values, and annotations cover safety, the description is largely complete. It could mention that the calculation depends on state-specific tax slabs, but the schema's state_code description and the 'state-wise' hint suffice. Minor gap: no mention of edge cases like zero salary or unsupported states.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema itself documents both parameters (gross_salary_monthly, state_code). The description does not add any extra meaning, constraints, or formatting hints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Calculate state-wise professional tax'. It identifies the specific resource (professional tax) and implies a state-dependent calculation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like calculate_income_tax or calculate_tds, which may be needed when computing total tax liability.

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 usage context: 'Use when computing total tax liability including professional tax deductions.' This indicates when to use but offers no guidance on when not to use or suggests alternatives among sibling calculator tools. It is vague and lacks exclusion criteria.

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