calculate_french_vat

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It discloses the return format and supported rates but omits error handling, edge cases (e.g., negative amounts), or mutation status. Basic behavior is covered, but details are lacking.

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: first for core function, second for output and related tools. No redundant information; every word serves a purpose.

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?

Output schema exists, so description doesn't need to detail return values, but it does. It mentions related bundle for context. Lacks details on rounding or precision, but overall sufficient for a simple 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining 'mode' (HT/TTC conversion) and linking 'rate' to the 4 French rates, surpassing bare schema descriptions.

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 French VAT and converts between HT and TTC, explicitly mentioning support for all 4 French VAT rates. It distinguishes itself from generic VAT calculators by specifying country and rates.

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 for French VAT calculations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like calculate_vat_generic or calculate_vat_reverse. The reference to list_bundles hints at related tools but lacks actionable exclusions.

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