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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the calculation includes the basic personal amount deduction but omits important details like tax year, tax brackets, or assumptions about residency. The agent lacks information on prerequisites, side effects, or limitations beyond what the schema implies.

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 brief at two sentences, efficiently stating the purpose and return fields. However, the inclusion of '...' and a reference to 'list_bundles' adds minor vagueness and unnecessary clutter. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks completeness for an agent to judge suitability. Missing elements include the tax year, specific basic personal amount value, and any disclaimers about applicability. The agent cannot determine if this tool meets the user's implied needs (e.g., current year, specific province context).

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'with basic personal amount deduction' which provides context for the calculation but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. No additional meaning or constraints are added for the 'income_cad' parameter.

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 calculates Canadian federal income tax with the basic personal amount deduction. It includes the specific return fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_canada_combined_tax' or 'calculate_quebec_income_tax', relying on the name alone.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions a reference to 'list_bundles' for related calculators, but does not specify conditions such as 'use this for federal-only calculations' or 'for residents of Canada'. This leaves the agent without decision-making context.

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