Director Liability Assessment

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states what the tool assesses without explaining effects, prerequisites, or output. There is no mention of whether the tool is read-only, requires additional data, or how results are presented. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then quickly listing coverage. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the complexity of 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's domain and scope. It names the legal sections and key coverage areas, which is sufficient for a specialized assessment tool, though it could benefit from stating the type of output (e.g., a liability estimate).

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 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context by relating parameters to legal sections (e.g., 'unremitted source deductions' maps to unremitted_source_deductions), but it does not meaningfully enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Assess personal liability exposure for corporate directors' with specific legal references (Section 227.1 ITA, Section 323 ETA). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on director liability, a unique area not covered by other tools like calculate_corporate_tax or audit_risk_assessment.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by naming the specific liabilities covered (unremitted source deductions, GST, due diligence defence). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is specific enough to guide selection among the many sibling tools.

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