SR&ED Tax Credit Calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds coverage context beyond the schema by naming supported methods and rates, but it does not disclose output format, assumptions, or potential limitations, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds useful coverage details. Excellent front-loading and structure.

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 calculation tool with rich schema and no output schema, the description gives a solid understanding of scope and supported methods. It lacks explicit output format or edge case handling, but is generally sufficient for an AI agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, referencing proxy method and CCPC rate which map to schema properties but without new detail.

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 SR&ED tax credits for federal and Alberta jurisdictions. It names a specific verb and resource, and its focus on SR&ED distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_corporate_tax.

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 SR&ED credit calculations and mentions specific coverage (enhanced CCPC rate, proxy method, Alberta IEG), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with general corporate tax tools.

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