GST Registration Assessment

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 only states the purpose, without mentioning that the tool considers special rules like taxi/rideshare status or a single-quarter threshold, nor does it indicate what the output looks like or whether the operation is side-effect-free. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the key verb and purpose, making it immediately clear what the tool does. Every word earns its place.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It states the core purpose but does not mention the factors that influence the assessment (taxi/rideshare, single-quarter threshold) or hint at the output format. The schema fills parameter details, but the description alone leaves some gaps for an agent predicting behavior.

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 adds minimal meaning beyond the schema by mentioning 'revenue level' (corresponding to annual_taxable_supplies), but it does not elaborate on the other parameters (is_taxi_rideshare, quarterly_revenue_highest). Since the schema already thoroughly describes all parameters, the description does not need to compensate much, but it also adds little.

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 uses a specific verb ('Determine') and clearly identifies the resource (GST registration requirement and optimal filing frequency) and input basis (revenue level). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_gst, which focuses on computing GST amounts, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when a user needs to assess registration requirements and filing frequency, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The context 'based on your revenue level' provides some guidance, but no explicit exclusions or alternative references are given.

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