Income Splitting Advisor (Post-TOSI)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'identifies which strategies are available', but does not disclose return format, safety (read-only vs. write), assumptions, or limitations. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core purpose.

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?

Two sentences, leading with the primary verb, and no redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 an advisor tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like, how strategies are presented, or what assumptions are made. The tool has moderate complexity (nested family_members array) and would benefit from clarifying intended use and result format.

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 meaning to family_members by mentioning 'ages and involvement', but does not clarify the impact of over_90pct_service_income or corporation_is_professional. Overall, the description adds marginal value over the already thorough 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 analyzes income splitting opportunities while considering TOSI rules, using specific verbs 'Analyze' and 'Identifies'. It differentiates from sibling tools like salary_vs_dividend by focusing on TOSI compliance and family member specifics (ages and involvement).

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 income splitting with TOSI concerns is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no named alternative tools. It leaves the agent to infer context from the TOSI mention, which is a clear signal but not explicit guidance.

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