Calculate Corporate Tax

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 discloses the calculation scope and key tax concepts (SBD, passive income grind, clawback), which adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only calculation, what assumptions are made (e.g., current tax rates), or limitations (e.g., applies only to Alberta). The verb 'calculate' suggests non-destructive behavior, but details are incomplete.

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 core action and resource, and each sentence adds value. It efficiently conveys both the primary purpose and the key tax components without verbosity.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the calculation scope and covered concepts, but does not specify the return format (e.g., single amount vs breakdown) or any edge-case assumptions. For a complex calculation tool, this leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect from the result.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema, though it references concepts like 'passive income grind' and 'taxable capital clawback' that map to prior_year_passive_income and taxable_capital, respectively. This provides slight enrichment but no syntax or format additions.

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 'Calculate combined federal + Alberta corporate income tax' with specific scope (CCPC or other corporation) and lists key components (SBD, general rate, investment income, passive income grind, taxable capital clawback). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like corporate_tax_rates (rates only) and calculate_business_limit (SBD limit only).

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 for computing total corporate tax liability but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like corporate_tax_rates or calculate_instalments. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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