GST Calculator

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 reveals the rate assumption and input modes, but does not specify the return value format, rounding behavior, or side effects. This is a notable gap because the tool likely performs a pure calculation and could easily state that it returns GST amount and total.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage context about input modes and the applicable tax rate.

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?

For a simple two-parameter calculator with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly adequate but omits return value details (e.g., does it return just the GST amount, the total, or both?). This ambiguity plus the lack of side-effect disclosure leaves the description incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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% with both parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the inclusive/exclusive distinction and adds the Alberta rate context, but does not significantly extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema already explains.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Calculate GST on a transaction') and clearly states its scope. It distinguishes from siblings like gst_quick_method_analysis by focusing on a simple transaction calculation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives usage context ('Can work from GST-exclusive or GST-inclusive amounts', 'Alberta rate is 5% (no PST/HST)') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as prepare_gst_worksheet or gst_quick_method_analysis. The usage is implied rather than guided.

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