UK dividend tax

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the calculation method, allowances, and estimation nature. Does not mention any destructive behavior or permission needs, but the tool appears read-only and safe.

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?

Two concise sentences plus an example that effectively demonstrate usage. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Covers the method, allowances, and example. Lacks explicit description of the output format (e.g., breakdown of tax components) but mentions 'year-over-year comparison', implying the result structure. Adequate for a complex tax calculator.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds an example and reinforces the meaning of parameters (e.g., otherIncome excludes dividends), but does not significantly extend beyond the 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?

Clearly states the tool computes UK dividend tax using HMRC's stacking method, with specific details about allowances and year comparison. Distinguishes from sibling tools focused on other countries or tax types.

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?

Provides a clear example and context for using the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, sibling tools cover different jurisdictions and tax types, making the intended usage fairly obvious.

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