Business Entity Comparison (Alberta)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates factors considered (tax rates, liability, compliance costs, planning opportunities) but does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., a comparison report, recommendation), whether it is strictly advisory/read-only, or whether any inputs trigger additional behavior. This lack of output clarity is a significant gap.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes key factors in a compact, readable manner. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It fails to explain what the user receives (e.g., a comparison matrix, pros/cons list, recommendation), how the inputs like expected_annual_income and personal_spending_needs influence the comparison, or what 'planning opportunities' means in context. More detail is needed for a 6-parameter advisory tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already provides, and it references only general factors, not the six specific inputs.

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 compares sole proprietorship, partnership, and corporation specifically for Alberta, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like salary_vs_dividend or holding_company_analysis by focusing on entity type selection.

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 implied usage is clear: when a user needs to compare business entity types. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, such as salary_vs_dividend for compensation planning or holding_company_analysis for corporate restructuring. It relies on the tool name and context.

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