LCGE Qualification Check

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 mentions the tests and status checked, which gives some insight into behavior, but it does not state that the tool is read-only, how it handles ambiguous inputs, or what the result type is (e.g., boolean or detailed report). This is a gap given 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and specific test names. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy, achieving high conciseness and clear structure.

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 is a nuanced tax qualification check with 8 parameters and no output schema, so the description should ideally explain what the tool returns and how the tests are applied. It names the tests but does not explain their thresholds or the output format, leaving the user to infer results. This is a moderate gap for a complex 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 schema already documents all 8 parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It names the tests but does not map them to specific 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 clearly states the tool determines if corporation shares qualify for the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption, specifying the exact exemption amount and naming the tests it checks (90% test, 50%/24-month test, CCPC status). This distinguishes it from sibling tax tools like asset_vs_share_sale or holding_company_analysis.

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 for LCGE qualification assessment but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives among the sibling tools. It is clear enough for a user looking for LCGE qualification, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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