Corporate Tax Instalment Calculator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the calculation methods, but fails to describe return format, assumptions (e.g., whether the small CCPC flag changes the schedule), or side effects. The agent is left uncertain about what the tool actually produces or how it handles the combination method.

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 that conveys the core function and method options without unnecessary words. It earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 calculator with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned instalment amounts look like (e.g., a schedule, a breakdown by period), how the method is selected automatically, or how the small CCPC flag alters the result. The absence of output schema means the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 full descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the three calculation methods (current-year, prior-year, combination) that map to the parameters, clarifying how current_year_estimated_tax, prior_year_tax, and second_prior_year_tax interact. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Calculate'), the subject ('corporate tax instalment amounts'), and the scope ('monthly/quarterly', with three specified methods). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_corporate_tax, which likely focuses on total tax rather than instalments.

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 instalment amounts are needed) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on prerequisites or comparison with sibling calculators, so the context is clear but not fully actionable.

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