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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is low; the description goes further by disclosing the actual computation behavior (5% of the judgment sum, half on settlement, zero if complied within ten days, 10% of three months' rent). It stops short of stating rounding, currency output, or result format.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition and the rate before any caveats, and every clause carries a distinct rule. It is, however, one very long compound sentence whose nested statutory clauses would be easier to scan as a short list.

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 five parameters, one required, no nesting, and annotations that already cover the safety profile, the description supplies the substantive legal context an agent needs to choose `kind` and `timing` correctly. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists, yet the description never indicates the shape or currency of the returned fee.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning by explaining what each branch costs rather than just naming the enum values (e.g. eviction = 10% of three months' rent, shora_settlement = art. 27 exemptions). It does not spell out the exact timing/shora_timing semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb (Calculate) and a precise, named resource (نیم‌عشر اجرایی / state execution fee on a civil judgment), then enumerates the exact statutory bases (art. 158, 159, 160, art. 27). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as calculate_arbitration_fee, calculate_litigation_fee, and calculate_stamp_duty.

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 implicitly tells the agent which branch applies by tying each rate to a factual scenario (money judgment, eviction, non-financial, Shora settlement), which is enough to pick a value of `kind`. However it never states when to prefer this tool over the neighboring fee calculators, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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