calculate_tax_liability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tax computation rules (20% STCG, 12.5% LTCG above exemption, debt fund slab rate, loss carryforward) and the return format (formatted summary). This is strong behavioral context, though it does not address edge cases or disclaimers.

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 well-organized with clear sections (rules, args, examples). It is longer than average, but that length is justified by the tax complexity and parameter count. It front-loads the purpose and uses bullets for readability, with no redundant filler.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and a complex domain, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all required params, provides a worked example, and explains return type. The output schema exists, so further return details are unnecessary. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 params. It does so thoroughly: buy_price/sell_price as INR, buy_date/sell_date with DD-MM-YYYY format, quantity integer, asset_type enum values, and symbol optional. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Calculate Indian LTCG / STCG tax liability for an equity or mutual fund trade.' It uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('tax liability') and scopes it to Indian equity/MF trades, distinguishing it from the many quote/analytics siblings. No other sibling tool appears to handle tax computation.

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 use for capital gains tax on equity/MF trades and provides detailed tax rules (post July 2024 Budget). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. Given the sibling list contains no other tax tool, it is clear, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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