Australia resident income tax

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'estimate for guidance' and cites official sources, hinting at non-binding output. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or what its limitations are (e.g., only 2025-26 rates, not all deductions).

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: the first lists functionality and gives an example, the second adds source and disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no fluff.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fails to describe the return format or contents. It says 'computes' these components but does not specify whether the output is a single number, a breakdown, or an object. This is a significant gap for a calculation tool.

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 100% with descriptions, but the tool description adds value by explaining how parameters affect the calculation (e.g., privateHospitalCover avoids MLS, hasHelpDebt triggers repayment) and listing the components. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter definitions.

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 Australian resident income tax with specific components (Medicare levy, surcharge, LITO, HELP/HECS) and provides a concrete example. It distinguishes from sibling tools like us_income_tax and ca_income_tax by specifying the tax jurisdiction and year.

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 Australian residents and provides an example, but does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for non-residents or other tax calculations). Sibling tools are different countries, so context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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