calculate_sci_is_vs_ir

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

With no annotations, the description must convey tool behavior. It states the tool compares two tax regimes, takes specific inputs, and returns net results. This is adequate for a calculator tool with no side effects, but lacks details on underlying methodology, assumptions, or any behavioral nuances beyond basic functionality.

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: three sentences covering purpose, usage context, and input/output summary. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core 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?

Given the input schema is rich (4 parameters with descriptions) and an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers all necessary context: what the tool does, who it's for, what inputs are needed, and what it returns. The reference to 'list_bundles' for related calculators adds helpful context.

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 each parameter is already well-described in the schema. The description adds a summary line ('Inputs: rental income, charges, owner tax bracket') but does not provide additional semantics beyond what is in the schema. Thus, the parameter semantics score is at 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's purpose: comparing SCI taxation under IS vs IR for French real-estate investors. It specifies verb 'Compare' and resource 'SCI taxation', and distinguishes from sibling calculators by mentioning the specific tax regime comparison and referencing 'list_bundles' for related calculators.

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: 'Use for French real-estate investors choosing tax regime.' It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools beyond a reference to 'list_bundles'. The usage guidance is sufficient but lacks exclusion criteria.

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