Record Keeping Requirements Guide

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 explaining behavior. It only lists content topics (what to keep, how long, format) but does not disclose whether the output is a static document, how it processes the input parameters, or what the response looks like.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and wastes no words.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation coverage, the description is too thin. It fails to explain how the parameters tailor the guide or how it differs from the similar sibling 'what_records_do_i_need'.

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 has 0% description coverage for its four parameters (business_type, has_employees, has_gst_registration, has_international_operations). The description does not mention any of these parameters or how they affect the guide, providing no added value over the bare 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 it is a guide for CRA and Alberta TRA record keeping requirements, covering what to keep, how long, and in what format. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'what_records_do_i_need', which likely serves a similar purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention 'what_records_do_i_need' or any other sibling, nor does it provide context for when this guide would be appropriate.

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