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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it explains the CRA residential flipping rule's consequence (held under 12 months = 100% business income, no capital gains treatment) and states that the tool flags the rule and computes the savings from crossing the 12-month line. It stops short of disclosing estimation assumptions or rounding conventions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the tax-rule behavior; nothing is redundant with the title. The first sentence is a dense comma-list that reads as an inventory of inputs rather than a calculation story, which slightly blurs the read but wastes no 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?

For a 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully names what comes back (estimated profit, tax bill, flipping-rule flag, 12-month savings), so an agent knows the shape of the result. What is missing is guidance on the Canadian scope boundary versus the BC-specific sibling and any note on model assumptions, but the core 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?

Schema description coverage is 92%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, and the baseline is 3. The description organizes the inputs into a calculation flow (rebate, contingency, holding costs, commission, closing costs, marginal rate) and adds the business-income vs capital-gains consequence for holdingPeriodMonths, but it introduces no parameter syntax, units, or defaults the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Estimate the profit on a Canadian house flip') and then enumerates exactly what is included: land transfer tax with rebate, renovation contingency, holding costs, commission, closing costs, and the tax bill. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like land_transfer_tax or capital_gains_tax, which each cover only one slice of the same flip.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the whole-flip calculator that includes the CRA 12-month rule, and the description names the comparison it enables ('tax saving from waiting past the 12-month line'). However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not route away from overlapping siblings such as bc_home_flipping_tax (BC-specific) or capital_gains_tax.

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