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 reveals the tool's advisory nature ('suggestions') and constraints (CGT allowance), but it does not clarify whether it executes trades or only calculates, nor does it mention authorization or destructive behavior. The description is partially transparent.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded with key information and earns its place.

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 description covers the essential purpose but lacks details on output format, constraints (e.g., maximum recommendations), and behavioral nuances. With no output schema and moderate complexity, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters ('holdings', 'isaUsedThisYear', 'cgtRealisedThisYear'). Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add meaning, e.g., clarifying format of 'holdings' array or units of numbers.

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: 'CGT-aware Bed & ISA suggestions — moves GIA/taxable holdings into unused ISA allowance while staying within CGT allowance.' It identifies the specific verb ('suggestions'), resource ('Bed & ISA'), and scope (within CGT allowance), distinguishing it from sibling tools like iht_estimate or total_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 implies when to use (when optimizing GIA holdings for ISA and CGT allowances) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, it provides enough context through the phrase 'moves GIA/taxable holdings into unused ISA allowance' to guide selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the reform details but does not disclose whether the tool is a read-only calculation, mutates data, or has side effects. The lack of information on input handling (e.g., gifts, liabilities) and output format diminishes transparency.

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 two sentences, no redundant words. However, the second sentence 'Applies NRB (£325k) + RNRB (£175k, if main home)' is slightly cryptic and could be more explanatory. Overall concise.

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 performs a complex IHT calculation with a specific reform, yet the description lacks details on computation method, assumptions, or output. With no output schema and only 33% parameter coverage, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage.

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 input schema covers 6 parameters but only describes 2 (aprAssets, bprAssets) with inline descriptions (33% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-level details beyond mentioning NRB and RNRB, which do not correspond to any parameter name. Users may not understand how liabilities, otherAssets, etc., are used.

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?

Description clearly states the tool calculates an inheritance tax estimate after a specific reform. It mentions key allowances (NRB, RNRB) and the combined cap, making the scope clear. The sibling tools are unrelated (pension, ISA, etc.), so differentiation is implicit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context of siblings suggests it's for IHT estimation, but no exclusions or prerequisites are provided. The description implies use for post-2026 scenarios but does not specify when other IHT tools might be more appropriate.

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

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

The description discloses the calculation logic and constraints (taper, floor, carry-forward), which adds behavioral context beyond the parameter names. However, it does not specify the return value or side effects, and no annotations exist to fill gaps.

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?

Two dense sentences with no extraneous words. Key information is front-loaded and efficiently communicated.

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 the tool (taper and carry-forward) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the output format, return type, or edge cases (e.g., when floor applies).

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 only 33% (priorYears has an explanation). The description adds meaning to adjustedIncome and thresholdIncome by referencing them in the taper formula, but does not fully define each parameter or how they are used, leaving 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 calculates the pension annual allowance taper and carry-forward, specifying the formula and rules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which cover ISAs, inheritance tax, projections, portfolio analysis, and overall 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the calculation, implying its use for pension allowance but does not provide context or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It vaguely hints at calculations (compound growth, annuity, drawdown) but lacks specifics on assumptions, return values, or side effects. For a financial projection tool, this is insufficient.

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 brief, almost a tagline. While it wastes no words, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. Important information is omitted for brevity.

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 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the projection returns (e.g., annual values, final pot, depletion year), or handle edge cases like missing optional parameters. Sibling tools suggest a financial planning suite, but this tool's specific contribution is unclear.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'compound growth', 'annuity', and 'drawdown-years' which loosely map to growthRate, annuityRate, and years, but does not clarify units, meaning of 'years' (contribution years? drawdown years?), or the role of annualContrib. The defaults for growthRate and annuityRate are not explained.

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 it's a pension projection using compound growth, annuity, and drawdown-years. It gives a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pension_annual_allowance' or 'portfolio_analysis'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling tools handle related but distinct tasks, but no comparisons are provided.

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

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 mentions drift and concentration warnings but does not explain what these entail, whether the tool is read-only, or what permissions are needed. Behavioral insights are limited.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key action. However, the phrasing is dense and could be slightly improved with clearer structure or bullet points for readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description fails to detail return values such as the format of drift and concentration warnings. It covers the tool's core purpose and parameters adequately but lacks output specifics, making it incomplete for understanding all facets of tool usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to `attitudeToRisk` by linking it to ATR target (1-7), but does not elaborate on the `holdings` parameter structure beyond the schema. It provides some context but not enough for full parameter understanding.

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 performs portfolio bucketing (equity/bond/cash/alt) and generates drift and concentration warnings relative to an ATR target (1-7). It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on tax and pension estimates.

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 implies usage for portfolio analysis, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives among siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only discloses the tax year and region dependency. It does not mention limitations, assumptions (e.g., no student loan deductions), or behavioral traits like whether it returns a breakdown or total only. The term 'facade' is ambiguous.

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?

A single sentence with no redundancy, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. Every element (year, tax components, region) earns its place.

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 no output schema and six parameters, the description omits critical details: return format, example usage, and whether the tool handles edge cases. It is incomplete for a calculation tool of this complexity.

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 description adds context by mapping parameters to tax components (e.g., income to income tax, cgtRealised to CGT), but it does not explain rentalIncome or savingsInterest, which lack schema descriptions. Schema coverage is ~67%, and the description partially compensates.

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 computes a UK total tax figure for 2025-26, listing included taxes. This is specific and resource-oriented, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like iht_estimate or pension_annual_allowance, relying on context clues from the sibling list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling list is provided but not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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