calculate_malus_ecologique

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The tool is clearly a calculator (returns computed values) with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or mention any potential limitations (e.g., 2026 only). The output fields are listed, which helps, but transparency is adequate rather than complete.

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 highly concise: one sentence for purpose and one for return value plus a reference. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word earns its place.

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 (single parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential points: what it calculates, the basis, and how to find related tools. It could mention that the tax applies only to new registrations in France for 2026, but the current text is sufficient for basic completeness.

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 schema already describes the parameter 'co2_g_km' with 100% coverage, including its unit and minimum. The description does not add new information about the parameter beyond restating 'CO2 g/km', so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 computes the French ecological malus tax for 2026 based on CO2 g/km for new vehicle registration. It specifies the returns (malus_eur, threshold, max) and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'list_bundles' for related calculators, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for computing the French CO2-based tax but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The reference to 'list_bundles' provides a hint for related tools but offers no exclusions or direct comparison, leaving the agent to infer context.

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