total_tax

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.