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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the calculation tests and rideshare rule but does not mention the output format, side effects, or any prerequisites beyond the input parameters.

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?

Two concise sentences: first covers primary purpose and mechanics, second adds essential special case. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description explains the check logic well but omits what the tool returns (e.g., yes/no, deadline info). Without an output schema, it would benefit from describing the return value structure.

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, but the description adds value by explaining the significance of 'is_rideshare' and clarifying revenue ordering ('oldest first') and currency ('CAD'). This goes beyond the schema.

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 function: checking GST/HST registration requirement for Canadian small businesses under the $30,000 small-supplier tests, including specific mechanics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gst_quick_method_compare' by focusing on registration obligation rather than method comparison.

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 when to use (registration check under small-supplier tests) and provides a key condition (rideshare drivers). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions, but context from sibling names implies this tool is for the initial registration decision.

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