calculate_inheritance_tax

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

The description discloses the return object structure with its fields, giving the agent a clear expectation of output. Although no annotations are present, the description adequately conveys that this is a stateless, read-only calculation with no side effects. It could mention specific edge cases or assumptions, but the provided information is sufficient for typical use.

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 states the purpose and output format, and the second directs to a related bundle. Every word is useful, and key information is front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple calculator with two parameters and a defined output, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what inputs are needed, what outputs are produced, and points to related tools. The schema covers input details, so no further information is necessary.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal new information about parameters, merely restating that the calculation is 'based on relationship and amount'. The listing of return fields provides some context but does not enhance parameter understanding significantly. A score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 action (calculate), the specific resource (French inheritance tax, with French term 'droits de succession'), and the input context (based on relationship and amount). It distinguishes itself from sibling tax calculators by specifying the exact tax type and jurisdiction, which is unique among the many calculator tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (for French inheritance tax calculations) and directs to 'list_bundles' for related French finance calculators, implying a broader family. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or exclude alternatives, though the specialization is evident.

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