iht_estimate

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.