sg_stamp_duty

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'Rates verified against IRAS' and 'FREE', which add some transparency about data source and cost. However, it does not disclose if the tool makes external calls, has rate limits, or returns cached data. The output format is not described, leaving some uncertainty.

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 concise with four short sentences covering purpose, return values, profiles, and source verification. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details. Slight improvement could group related info more structurally.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and key profiles, but lacks explanation of property type differentiation, how property_count affects ABSD, and examples of return data. Sibling tools are diverse, so no direct conflict, but more context on output would help.

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 description coverage is 50%, with descriptions only for 'price' and 'property_count'. The description adds value by defining the buyer_profile acronyms (SC, SPR, FR), but does not explain 'property_type' or the effect of 'property_count' beyond the schema's description. Overall, it compensates partially for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specifies the tool calculates Singapore property stamp duty (BSD + ABSD) and returns total, effective rate, and breakdown. It names the resource and action precisely, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sg_income_tax or sg_rental_yield.

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 by stating it calculates stamp duty, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool, which leaves room for misinterpretation.

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