Input Tax Credit Eligibility Check

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It transparently signals a non-destructive determination by saying 'Determine if' and mentions that restrictions are provided, which adds value. However, it does not disclose how inputs like business_use_percent or annual_taxable_supplies factor into the decision or describe the output format.

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 states the purpose and output without waste. 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?

The description plus fully documented schema covers tool selection and input invocation. Return format is not formally specified, but the phrase 'Determine if... and any restrictions' gives a functional idea of the output. Without an output schema, it could benefit from a note about result structure, but it's sufficiently complete for an eligibility check.

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 each of the four parameters is already documented clearly. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable per the baseline; it doesn't conflict or leave undocumented parameters.

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 if') and clearly identifies the resource ('a purchase qualifies for an Input Tax Credit (ITC)') and output scope ('any restrictions that apply'). This distinguishes it from sibling GST tools like calculate_gst or gst_quick_method_analysis, which focus on calculating amounts rather than eligibility determination.

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 phrase 'Determine if a purchase qualifies' implies the tool should be used when checking ITC eligibility for a purchase, providing a clear context. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives such as calculate_gst, so usage boundaries are only implied.

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