Get Capital Allowance Hint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the jurisdiction-dependent behavior (GB vs other countries) and the nature of the output (a hint, not a computation). This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides jurisdiction-specific detail, and ends with explicit usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with a clear purpose and usage guidance, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what kind of output to expect (a hint, not a computation). The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the description sets expectations for the nature of the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (asset_id) and its source (from get_fixed_assets). The description adds context by explaining that the asset is a fixed asset and that the hint is specific to that asset, which reinforces the parameter's meaning without needing to repeat schema details.

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: it provides a tax capital allowance hint for a fixed asset, distinguishing between GB companies (AIA/WDA guidance) and other countries (jurisdiction note). It also explicitly differentiates from a filing computation, which helps an agent understand the tool's scope.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user asks about capital allowances, AIA, or tax relief on a specific asset — not a filing computation.' This provides clear usage guidance and excludes a common alternative use case, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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