Asset vs Share Sale Comparison

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'compare tax implications' and 'critical', but does not explain what the tool computes or returns, any assumptions (e.g., Canadian tax context hinted by LCGE and QSBC fields), or limitations. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a complex comparison tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and object. The second sentence about buyer/seller relevance adds useful audience context without excessive fluff. There is no wasted wording or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

This is a complex comparison tool with 8 input parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description does not mention expected outputs, calculation approach, jurisdictional specifics (e.g., Canadian tax concepts like LCGE and QSBC), or any caveats. Such sparse context is insufficient for an agent to understand what will happen when invoking the tool.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the general context of asset vs share sale, so it does not elevate the score.

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 function: compare tax implications of asset sale versus share sale. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on asset/share sale comparison distinguishes it from sibling tools like salary_vs_dividend or holding_company_analysis.

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 implies usage when considering a business sale as an asset or share sale, and it notes relevance for both buyers and sellers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use over alternatives or provide exclusions or prerequisites, so the guidance is only implied.

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