Corporate Reorganization Advisor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is informational advice only, mention jurisdiction/legal limitations, describe the form of output, or note any prerequisites such as having financial data. The description is purely functional with no caveats.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and enriched with specific section references. No wasted words; the description is well-structured for quick scanning.

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 an advisor with four parameters and no output schema or annotations; the description provides a reasonable high-level purpose but lacks caveats, expected response format, and any guidance on limitations or prerequisites. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool fits a complex advisory use case.

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 four parameters. The description adds general context about reorganization types but does not map them to specific parameter values (e.g., which scenario corresponds to a butterfly transaction), nor does it explain how has_tax_losses or num_corporations affect the advice. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's domain: guidance on corporate reorganizations with specific transaction types (amalgamation, wind-up, butterfly, rollover). It uses a specific verb ('Guidance') and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like holding_company_analysis or estate_freeze_planner, which could overlap.

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?

It implies usage when the user needs to choose a corporate restructuring structure ('Identifies the right structure for your situation'), but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool suggestions. Sibling tools could serve adjacent purposes but are not mentioned.

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