Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP) Guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the guide covers General and Limited tracks, but does not explain that the tool likely uses the input parameters (e.g., estimated_unreported_income, type_of_issue) to tailor the response. There is no description of what the user will receive (e.g., eligibility assessment, next steps) or how the guide behaves beyond being a static text.

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 including the key differentiator (both tracks). Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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 has five parameters including sensitive financial inputs, and no output schema or annotations. The description is too brief to explain how the guide uses these inputs, what kind of output it produces, or what specific information it will cover beyond the two tracks. Given its moderate complexity, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 five parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic context about how the parameters influence the guidance, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 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 states the tool is a guide to CRA's Voluntary Disclosure Program, specifying its purpose (correcting past tax errors/omissions) and context (before CRA contacts you). It also distinguishes from sibling guides by naming the General and Limited tracks, making it unequivocally about VDP.

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 gives a clear 'when' to use the tool: when a client needs to correct past tax issues before CRA initiates contact. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide 'when not' conditions, but the trigger scenario is obvious and sufficient for basic differentiation from sibling resources like dispute_resolution_guide.

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