calculate_inheritance_tax

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that the tool calculates tax and returns a structured object. While it doesn't mention side effects or edge cases, for a read-only calculation tool this is sufficient. The output fields are enumerated, providing good transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence covers purpose and inputs, the second lists outputs and provides a helpful cross-reference. Every word adds value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, clear output), the description is complete. It explains inputs, outputs, and directs to related calculators. No additional context is needed for effective use.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'amount' and 'relationship' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on parameter constraints or formats, so it does not surpass the baseline.

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 calculates French inheritance tax (droits de succession) using the relationship and amount. The verb 'Calculate' and the specific resource 'French inheritance tax' make the purpose unambiguous. The mention of output fields further clarifies the tool's function.

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 use for French inheritance tax calculations and references list_bundles for related calculators. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for avoidance. The guidance is present but not thorough.

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