Payroll Deduction Calculator

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It specifies the Alberta scope and that it shows both employee deductions and employer costs, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, tax year assumptions, or limitations (e.g., no Quebec support). This is partial transparency.

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, front-loaded with the action and includes the key output differentiator (employer costs). No filler or redundant content.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic output summary, but lacks guidance on parameter alternatives, tax year assumptions, or how to combine parameters (e.g., using annual_salary). The schema covers parameter definitions, yet the description does not tie them to the deduction logic.

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 already documents all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships (e.g., gross_pay vs annual_salary) or how they map to the deduction types.

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 calculates CPP, EI, federal and Alberta income tax deductions, with a specific verb (Calculate) and resource (payroll deductions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like corporate tax or WCB by naming the exact deduction types and the employer cost output.

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 use when calculating payroll deductions for employees, but provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like payroll_remittance_schedule. Sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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