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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: bracket-by-bracket computation from official schedules, inclusion of first-time-buyer rebates, and coverage of specific provinces and cities. It notes that Alberta and Saskatchewan charge no tax. Missing detail on output format, but overall transparent.

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?

Three focused sentences: first gives purpose and trigger, second details computation and coverage, third explains parameter usage. No wordiness, each sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 effectively covers what the tool does, what inputs it expects, and its geographic scope. However, it omits any hint about return values (since no output schema exists), such as whether it returns total tax only or a breakdown. A brief output description 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter interaction: 'Give a price, or just a city to use its current reference market price' and clarifies 'province required if no ville is given.' This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 computes land-transfer tax (taxe de bienvenue) for home purchases in Canadian provinces/cities, using official schedules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'acheter_ou_louer' (buy vs rent) and 'salaire_requis' (required salary) by focusing solely on tax calculation.

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 says 'Call this when the user wants to know the land-transfer tax,' giving a clear trigger. It also lists covered provinces and exclusions (PEI and Newfoundland), but doesn't directly compare to siblings or specify when not to use it. Still, it provides solid context for appropriate use.

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