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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It helpfully states that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults, but it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or output formatting. For a calculator, this is partial but acceptable.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose, but it contains a typo ('calculator calculator') and a disjointed semicolon-separated list. It is not overly verbose, but structure and polish are below what a high-quality definition should have.

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 schema documents all inputs, and the description lists the expected output fields and the default-fallback behavior. Since there is no output schema, this is reasonably complete for a simple calculator, though a concrete example or output format hint would improve it further.

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 input schema already fully documents all three parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond mentioning defaults generally, so it meets the schema-driven baseline but does not exceed it.

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 identifies the action ('Run') and the resource (SR&ED investment tax credit calculator), and lists the computed output figures. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like calculator_describe, but its role as a calculation tool is evident.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as calculator_describe or enquiry tools. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and title, not stated.

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