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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs only arithmetic and text checks, states the formula is non-compounded, flags absence of French text, and explicitly disclaims legal/tax advice. It does not detail error cases or threshold rounding behavior, but it gives strong transparency for a pure validation tool.

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 three sentences with high information density. It front-loads the main verification action, adds the French-language check, and ends with a useful disclaimer. Every phrase earns its place, and the optional-parameter clarification is packed into the schema text rather than bloating the main description.

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 there is no output schema, the description does not explain the return shape, but the tool's outcomes are comparatively simple (pass/fail style flags for arithmetic and language presence). The main gaps are lack of explicit rounding rule and return structure, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly with the provided guidance.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that gst_amount and qst_amount are the values shown on the invoice, subtotal is pre-tax CAD, and the absence of french_text is itself flagged. It also clarifies that english_text is optional but needed for the language check, going beyond the schema's terse labels.

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 states a specific verb ('Verifies') and resource ('GST/QST calculation per Revenu Quebec formula') plus a second check (French invoice presence per Charter provisions), and clarifies it is a pure arithmetic/text check, not legal advice. This distinguishes it from siblings such as post_quebec_invoice_generate because it is a compliance verification tool, not a generation tool.

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 when to use it: when checking Quebec invoice compliance for GST/QST and French-language requirements. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling list clearly separates generation (post_quebec_invoice_generate) from checking, and the description's own scoping ('not legal or tax advice') adds a practical boundary.

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