Year-End Tax Planning Checklist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a checklist output and a planning purpose, but it does not disclose whether it is purely informational, how personalized the results are, or how the input parameters affect the checklist.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, the first sentence largely restates the title, leaving the second sentence to add meaningful context.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description needs to cover behavior and parameters more fully. It does not explain what the checklist contains or how the boolean inputs alter the output, making it incomplete for a 5-parameter 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?

Only 2 of 5 parameters have schema descriptions (40% coverage), and the description adds no details about is_ccpc, has_employees, or has_investments. It indirectly reinforces fiscal_year_end and estimated_income through 'year-end' and 'minimize taxes,' but this is insufficient.

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's purpose: a comprehensive year-end tax planning checklist for Alberta businesses, with the goal of minimizing taxes before fiscal year-end. This distinguishes it from other checklist tools like employer_annual_checklist.

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 communicates when to use the tool: before fiscal year-end for Alberta businesses. It does not name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the context is unequivocal.

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