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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the whole burden. It does say what gets computed (DLD transfer fees plus total costs), which sets expectations for the output. It does not disclose any rate assumptions, how the mortgage flag changes fees (for instance, mortgage registration), whether rates are current, or who pays which fee.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and it states the core action up front. It is efficient but leaves no room for the differentiating detail that a fee calculator competing with a near-identical sibling needs.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter calculator, but it has no output schema, so the description has to explain the return values. "Transfer fees and total buying costs" hints at the output, but the fee breakdown and its relationship to calculate_purchase_costs remain unclear.

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%, and both parameters are documented inline: priceAed in AED and withMortgage as a boolean. The description adds nothing beyond that, such as what the mortgage flag changes, so the baseline 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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource: "Calculate Dubai Land Department transfer fees and total buying costs." That is far more informative than the name alone. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool calculate_purchase_costs, which sounds like it covers overlapping territory.

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 phrase "for a Dubai property purchase" implies the context, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool rather than calculate_purchase_costs or calculate_mortgage. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so the agent has to work out the choice itself.

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