calculate_quebec_income_tax

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the deduction behavior ('with basic personal amount deduction') and the return fields, but does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., year or tax bracket assumptions). While not contradictory, it could be more transparent.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded key information. Every sentence adds value: first defines purpose, second provides a pointer to related tools. No wasted words.

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 one parameter and the presence of output schema (return fields listed in description), the description is largely complete. It covers the core deduction logic and return values, though it does not specify tax year or bracket details. Adequate for a straightforward 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?

Schema coverage for parameters is 100% ('income_cad' described in schema as 'Annual income in Canadian dollars (CAD)'). The description does not add significant meaning beyond matching the schema, so 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 'Calculate Quebec provincial income tax (Revenu Québec) with basic personal amount deduction,' providing a specific verb, resource (Quebec income tax), and distinguishing detail (basic personal amount deduction). This differentiates it from sibling tax calculators for other regions.

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 hints at related calculators via 'See list_bundles for related 'finance-afrique-quebec' calculators,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_canada_federal_tax or calculate_belgian_income_tax. Lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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