calculate_crypto_tax_fr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the calculation and return value, without mentioning any side effects, permissions, or limitations. For a simple calculation tool, this is minimal but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and return, then a reference to related tools. No unnecessary words or redundancy; highly concise.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail the return format. It mentions the return key 'gain_ratio'. For a simple calculation, this is sufficient, though it could briefly note the assumption of 30% PFU tax.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter names and descriptions, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already defines the parameters clearly.

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 it calculates the French flat tax (30% PFU) on cryptocurrency capital gains at withdrawal, specifying the return value and directing to related tools via list_bundles. The verb 'calculate' and resource are precise, distinguishing it from sibling calculators.

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 indicates usage at withdrawal and mentions a related bundle for other crypto calculators, implying context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or exclude scenarios, which would improve guidance.

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