calculate_canada_rrq

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return fields but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. It implies a pure calculation without side effects, but does not explicitly state safety.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second lists return fields and points to related tools. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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 description covers purpose, input, output (partial list), and references related tools via list_bundles. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail every return field. Could mention that it's a pure calculation with no side effects, but it is largely complete.

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%, with the parameter 'gross_annual_cad' already described. The description adds the return field 'gross_annual_cad' but no additional constraints, examples, or units beyond the schema. 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 it 'Calculate Quebec Pension Plan (RRQ) contributions for employee.' It specifies the resource (RRQ contributions) and the verb (calculate), distinguishing it from sibling tools like calculate_canada_ei or calculate_canada_federal_tax.

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 weak guidance: 'See list_bundles for related finance-afrique-quebec calculators.' It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. No comparison with other Canadian tax calculators is provided.

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