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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the legal basis and complexity, and notes that reduction rules are included. However, it does not describe the output format, assumptions, or any limitations (e.g., whether it requires all family members to be specified). This adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds value by emphasizing reliability and edge cases. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description could do more to specify what the tool returns and how it handles missing parameters. It explains the legal domain and the complexity, but the agent may not know what to expect as a result (e.g., a numeric share, a breakdown, or a formatted legal report). This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the mention of حجب نقصانی aligns with sibling_count's schema description. It provides no extra meaning for parameters like total_assets_toman or deceased_gender, so a score 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 the tool calculates Iranian inheritance shares under specific legal articles (قانون مدنی arts. 862–949) and includes reduction rules (حجب نقصانی). It uses a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('inheritance shares'), and is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like calculate_diyeh or calculate_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 implies usage for Iranian inheritance calculations and explicitly says hand computation is unreliable and to 'always use this tool' for jurisprudential edge cases. It provides a strong context for when to use, but does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when a simple share calculation might not need this). This is clear but lacks explicit 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.