Foreign Tax Credit Calculator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is a calculator (implying read-only), and it adds useful context about income types and the legal section. However, it does not describe limitations, edge cases, or the exact nature of the returned result, which leaves some ambiguity for an AI 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Calculate') and the specific object ('available foreign tax credit under Section 126'). It contains no redundant information and is easy to parse.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry more weight. It adequately identifies the purpose and income types, but it omits details about calculation limits (e.g., the credit being the lesser of foreign tax paid and Canadian tax on foreign income) and the return format. For a tool with six required parameters, this leaves some gaps in completeness.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for all six parameters, so the description adds only marginal value by clarifying the business/non-business distinction and referencing Section 126. It does not explain parameter relationships or calculation logic beyond what the schema already states.

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 primary function: calculating the available foreign tax credit under Section 126. It distinguishes between business and non-business income, which directly matches the income_type parameter and helps differentiate this tool from siblings like corporate tax calculators or treaty rate lookups.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool—when calculating foreign tax credits for Canadian tax purposes on foreign income. It provides clear context (business vs. non-business income) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving a slight gap in exclusion guidance.

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