Capital Cost Allowance Calculator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose core behavior (calculates depreciation, supports half-year rule and Accelerated Investment Incentive), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what output is returned, or any assumptions about defaults beyond the schema. It offers moderate transparency, not rich detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds value by specifying the calculation scope and supported rules. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description and parameter schema together are mostly sufficient. The purpose and supported options are clear, and the years_to_project parameter hints at the output being a CCA schedule. Minor gaps remain, such as explicitly stating return format and assumptions, but overall completeness is good for a calculator 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by mapping high-level features to parameters: 'all CCA classes' relates to cca_class, 'half-year rule' relates to is_first_year, and 'Accelerated Investment Incentive' relates to use_accelerated_incentive. This goes beyond simply restating the schema.

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 a specific action ('Calculate CCA (depreciation)') on a specific resource ('a capital asset'), and adds differentiating features ('Supports all CCA classes, half-year rule, and Accelerated Investment Incentive'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cca_class_lookup, which is more about class rules than 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 implies when to use the tool (whenever CCA calculation is needed) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It mentions supported rules, giving some context, but there is no 'use this instead of X' guidance even though sibling tools exist.

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