calculate_swiss_pillar3a

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral traits. It discloses the return format (a dictionary with specific keys), but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. The description does not contradict any annotations since none are provided.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return structure. It front-loads the core action and includes a useful reference to related tools. While sparse, it avoids wasted words.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, simple calculation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It names the return keys and references sibling calculators for broader context. Minor missing detail: it could mention the maximum contribution limits from the schema.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (annual_contribution and marginal_tax_rate). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already offers, 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 calculates Swiss pillar 3a tax savings and lists the returned values. It also notes the alias '3e pilier lie' and references related 'finance-suisse' calculators via list_bundles, distinguishing it from sibling 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 implies usage for calculating pillar 3a tax savings by specifying the output fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The reference to list_bundles hints at related tools but lacks direct comparison.

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