Get Qfzp Status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by listing the returned fields (income split, de minimis status, free zone name, substance declaration state, per-zone hints) and the conditional `applicable: false` behavior. It does not discuss error conditions or response formatting, but the added detail goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then enumerates return fields, and ends with concrete use cases. Three sentences carry a high density of specific information without redundancy. Each 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return fields and usage triggers, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke and what to expect. The main gap is that it doesn't specify the response format or potential error conditions, leaving minor ambiguity in a no-schema context. For a read-only status tool, this is largely complete but not flawless.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rule, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description appropriately omits parameter details and focuses on behavior and output.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (QFZP status), defines the acronym, and enumerates the exact return fields. It explicitly notes non-applicability for UK/UAE mainland companies, distinguishing it from generic tax tools in the sibling list. An agent can immediately identify what this tool does and how it differs from others.

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 explicitly provides trigger conditions: 'Use when the user asks about QFZP status, whether they still qualify, their de minimis headroom, or whether they'll owe 9% CT.' It also notes the exclusion for UK/mainland companies via `applicable: false`. However, it does not name an alternative sibling tool for those non-applicable cases, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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