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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that unverified provinces yield a partial estimate flagged supported:false, and lists all tax components included. This transparently sets expectations about the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 yet informative, consisting of two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality and outputs, and the second clarifies geographic coverage and fallback behavior. No 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?

While there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns: federal tax, provincial tax, CPP/QPP, total, after-tax income, effective rate, and a supported flag. This covers the key outputs for a tax estimation tool. Slightly more detail on response format would improve completeness.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of each parameter (year range, province codes, net income after expenses) and adds useful context beyond the schema, such as 'after expenses' and that year is limited to 2025/2026.

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 tax, CPP/QPP, etc.) and indicating verified provinces. It distinguishes from a partial estimate for unverified provinces.

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 which provinces are fully verified and that others return a partial estimate with a supported:false flag. This provides clear context on when to use the tool and what to expect, though it does not compare directly to sibling tools like cpp_self_employed or gst tools.

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