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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the 2026 tax year, which contribution programs are included (CPP/QPP, EI, QPIP), Quebec-specific deductions, and that net take-home pay is produced. It stops short of describing permissions, edge cases, or return structure.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence covering the full calculation scope with no filler. The long parenthetical list of contributions is dense but each item earns its place by defining coverage.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned. It indicates net pay and the tax components computed, which is partially sufficient, but it does not describe the shape of the result (breakdown per component, deductions vs. tax) that an agent would need to interpret 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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents province, annualIncome and rrspContribution; the only undocumented parameter is employmentType. The description adds nothing about how rrspContribution or employmentType affect the calculation, so it does not compensate for the small gap.

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 ('Calculate') and a well-scoped resource: 2026 federal + provincial income tax, CPP/QPP, EI, QPIP, Ontario surtax and Health Premium, plus net pay. That enumeration distinguishes it from sibling tax tools like capital_gains_tax or land_transfer_tax, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 says what is calculated but never when to choose this tool over capital_gains_tax or the property-tax siblings, and gives no prerequisites (residency, employment type, tax-year constraints) or exclusions.

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