calculate_lmnp_deficit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return format (total_deductible, deficit, note) and lacks details on side effects, permissions, or constraints beyond the input schema. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.

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—two sentences efficiently conveying purpose, return fields, and a pointer to related tools. Every sentence is valuable with no redundancy or extraneous text.

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 (3 required numeric parameters, clear return structure) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the necessary context. It could benefit from mentioning any tax rule assumptions, but overall it is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

All three parameters are documented with descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Calculate LMNP (non-professional furnished rental) tax deficit.' It specifies the resource (LMNP tax deficit) and the action (calculate), distinguishing it from hundreds of sibling tools that are also calculation-focused. The inclusion of the return structure adds clarity.

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 a hint to see list_bundles for related calculators, implying context but not offering explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer.

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