FreelancerTax — Canadian self-employed tax math

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the computational nature, specific outputs (including the tax-deduction vs tax-credit split on T1 Schedule 8), and the supported years (implied by parameter). There is no contradiction or missing critical behavior.

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 just two sentences: first states the action and outputs, second provides an exclusion and alternative. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description lists all major outputs (base+enhanced, CPP2, total payable, split) and provides enough context for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage. For a computational tool with two parameters, this is 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?

The schema already defines parameters with an enum for year and a description for net_self_employment_income. The description adds context that year must be for the given calendar year and income is net, but does not explain derived concepts like 'CPP2', which are more about outputs. Overall, parameters are well-covered.

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 starts with a specific action ('Compute self-employed CPP contributions') and lists concrete outputs (base+enhanced, CPP2, total payable, T1 split). It distinguishes from the sibling 'estimate_self_employed_tax' by clarifying that Quebec residents should use the latter for QPP.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (self-employed CPP) and provides a clear alternative ('use estimate_self_employed_tax with province QC for QPP') for Quebec residents, making it easy for an agent to decide.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that for non-verified provinces, only a partial estimate is returned with a supported:false flag. It also lists output components, providing good behavioral transparency despite no mention of authentication or rate limits.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists output components. It covers the tool's scope, including edge cases for unverified provinces. Complete for a simple estimation tool with three parameters.

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?

While the schema already covers parameter descriptions (100% coverage), the description adds meaning by grouping provinces into 'fully verified' vs. others, which helps agents understand the behavior for different province codes. This goes beyond the schema's enum definitions.

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 estimates a Canadian self-employed person's full tax bill, listing specific components (federal, provincial, CPP/QPP, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cpp_self_employed by focusing on the full tax bill rather than just CPP.

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 self-employed individuals needing a full tax estimate and mentions verified vs. unverified provinces, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., cpp_self_employed) or when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the weekend next-business-day rule and the CRA effective date basis, but does not mention data ordering, pagination, or any side effects. Since the tool is read-only, the omissions are minor but notable.

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 sentences long, with no wasted words. It front-loads the essential purpose (upcoming CRA deadlines) and adds the calendar feed as a bonus. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple parameter set and no output schema, the description adequately covers what deadlines are included and the weekend rule. It does not specify return format or field details, but for a list tool this is sufficient. The mention of a subscribable calendar feed adds extra value.

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% because the parameter 'limit' is described with min, max, and default. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 uses specific verbs ('get') and clearly identifies the resource ('CRA tax deadlines for Canadian freelancers / self-employed individuals'). It lists specific deadline types (filing, payment, GST/HST, etc.) and applies a weekend rule, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cpp_self_employed or estimate_self_employed_tax which focus on calculations.

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 specifies the target audience (Canadian freelancers/self-employed) and mentions the weekend rule, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like gst_quick_method_compare or instalment_plan, though the context makes it reasonably clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the mechanics: 'exact mechanics of when to charge and the registration deadline' and the rideshare exception. It does not mention any destructive or side effects, but for a read-only check tool, this is sufficient and does not contradict any missing annotations.

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. It consists of two clear sentences: the first states the core purpose and mechanics, the second adds a specific use-case instruction. No unnecessary words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (Canadian GST/HST registration rules) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the $30k threshold, small-supplier tests, and rideshare rule. It could hint more at the output type, but it is complete enough for an agent to understand input and purpose.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that quarterly_revenues are worldwide, cash-based, and that rideshare drivers must register from first fare. This enriches the parameter understanding for the agent.

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: to check GST/HST registration requirement for Canadian small businesses/freelancers under the $30k small-supplier tests. It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('registration requirement'), and context (Canadian, small business, specific tests), distinguishing it from siblings like gst_quick_method_compare or cpp_self_employed.

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 usage context: it's for checking registration under small-supplier tests. It gives specific guidance for rideshare drivers (set is_rideshare true). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool compares methods and determines which retains more money. However, it does not disclose assumptions, limitations, or treatment of invalid inputs.

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 effectively front-loads the main action. It is concise but could be slightly clearer about the output.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should explain return values. It mentions 'which one keeps more money' but lacks detail on output format, reliability, or edge cases. With moderate complexity, more context 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking business_type to excluded professions test and revenue to revenue ceiling, beyond what the schema alone 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 clearly states the tool compares GST/HST Quick Method vs regular method for Canadian small businesses, covering eligibility, remittance, and net benefit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like CPP, tax deadlines, and registration checks.

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 use for Canadian small businesses considering the quick method, but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or provide alternatives. Context signals show distinct sibling tools, but no explicit exclusion is given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses tax thresholds and computes three options with a no-interest suggestion, but does not mention edge cases, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only.

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, informative sentence that front-loads the key action. It is concise without being terse, though it could be broken into two sentences for clarity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does but lacks detail on the output format or how results are presented. It mentions 'quarterly schedules' but does not specify the structure of the response.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new information about individual parameters beyond what the schema provides, but it contextualizes how the parameters are used (to test thresholds and compute options).

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: to determine if a Canadian individual must pay quarterly income-tax instalments and to compute all three CRA payment options. It uses specific verbs like 'determine' and 'compute', and specifies the resource (quarterly instalments). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'estimate_self_employed_tax' or 'get_tax_deadlines'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no mention of when not to use it. The description assumes the user already knows they need instalment calculations.

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