Employer Annual Obligations Checklist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool provides a 'complete checklist' but does not explicitly mention whether it returns a list, whether it is read-only, or whether it has any side effects. Given the no-parameter, simple nature, the behavior is implied but not clearly disclosed.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and key content. It is concise, contains no fluff, and every word adds value.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It specifies the scope (Alberta employers) and examples, but does not explain the output format or whether it is a static reference or an interactive checklist. The 'and more' is vague, leaving some ambiguity about the full scope.

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?

There are zero parameters, so per the baseline rule, this dimension scores 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not add any misleading parameter-related information.

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 identifies the tool as a checklist for annual employer obligations in Alberta, with specific examples (T4s, ROEs, WCB). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on employer-specific annual duties rather than general year-end or tax preparation checklists. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'generate' or 'view', making it slightly less direct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as year_end_checklist or filing_calendar, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions. The agent is left to infer usage context solely from the tool name.

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