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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses that GST/QST are computed exactly per Revenu Quebec's current formula, that translation is not performed, and that the output is not legal or tax advice. It does not specify the output document format, but the core non-obvious behavior is covered.

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 two efficiently front-loaded sentences: the first states the action, scope, and key non-translation constraint; the second adds the legal disclaimer. Every phrase earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

For a generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus fully covered schema gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. A brief mention of the return format or of the compliance-check sibling would make it fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces that line-item text must be bilingual and is not translated, but it does not add new parameter syntax, formats, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Assembles') and a specific resource ('bilingual (French/English) Quebec invoice document'), and it adds a key constraint that the tool does not translate. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool post_quebec_invoice_compliance_check, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear usage context: it assembles, does not translate, and requires the caller to supply both languages' line-item text. This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or a when-not scenario relative to the compliance-check sibling.

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