Canada federal + provincial income tax

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the calculation is an 'estimate for guidance' using '2026 rates from official sources', which adds some transparency. However, it does not explain limitations, accuracy bounds, or how partial tax credits (e.g., for deductions) are handled.

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 long with a code example, making it efficient. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a typical usage example, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters).

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and a complex calculation involving multiple jurisdictions, the description gives a high-level overview but lacks details on the output structure (e.g., breakdown of tax, CPP, EI) and edge cases (e.g., zero income). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining grossIncome as 'annual employment income in CAD', provinceCode as a two-letter code with valid codes listed, rrspContribution as deducted from taxable income, and compareAllProvinces behavior. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 tool name, title, and description clearly indicate it computes Canadian federal and provincial income tax for 2026, including CPP/EI and take-home pay. The example and sibling tools (e.g., us_income_tax) confirm its geographic specificity, making purpose unmistakable.

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 provides an example and mentions the compareAllProvinces option, giving usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (though sibling tools are country-specific) or mention prerequisites like 'grossIncome' must be in CAD.

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