Assess Form B 2025 preparation readiness

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying that this is a readiness check only and explicitly excludes calculation and submission, which is a meaningful behavioral boundary beyond the annotations. It does not describe the output shape, but the safety profile is well covered.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, lists the relevant record types, and closes with an important exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 21 parameters, 8 required booleans, a nested audit object, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the returned readiness result looks like, how required parameters interact, or what conditional schedule dependencies exist, so an agent would still need to infer much of the calling contract.

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 input schema has 21 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It only refers broadly to 'source records, finalised accounts, official worksheets, and conditional schedules,' leaving key parameters like assessmentType, partnershipIncome, foreignIncomeReceivedInMalaysia, and the various schedule-ready booleans unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether...are ready') and identifies concrete resources: source records, finalised accounts, official worksheets, and conditional schedules. It further distinguishes itself from preparation/calculation/submission tools, especially the sibling prepare_be_2025_draft.

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 context is clear: this tool is for assessing readiness before manual Form B preparation. It explicitly states what it does not do ('does not calculate or submit Form B'), providing a useful when-not signal, though it does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly sequence it before prepare_be_2025_draft.

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