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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It includes the basic personal amount deduction and lists output fields, but does not disclose assumptions (e.g., tax year, residency requirements, or excluded surtaxes/credits). The behavioral transparency is moderate.

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 concise with two sentences. The first front-loads the main purpose and key detail, and the second provides a cross-reference. There is no wasted text, though the second sentence could be considered slightly extraneous for core functionality.

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 tool has one parameter and a presented output schema in the description. However, the description lacks details such as the tax year or rate assumptions, and whether it is a read-only calculation. It partially covers the context but is not fully 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?

There is one parameter ('income_cad') with 100% schema description coverage, meaning the schema already defines it well. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Calculate Quebec provincial income tax (Revenu Québec) with basic personal amount deduction.' It uses a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('Quebec provincial income tax'), distinguishing it from numerous sibling tax calculators for other jurisdictions (e.g., calculate_canada_federal_tax, calculate_belgian_income_tax).

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 indicates when to use the tool (for Quebec provincial income tax) and references a related bundle for similar calculators, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct alternatives. The mention of 'list_bundles' is a hint but not comprehensive usage guidelines.

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