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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It does add two useful facts: the default no-argument behavior and the legal provenance (budget law 1405, table 16). It says nothing about return units, currency, or whether the sum is itemized.

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, front-loaded with the calculation and its legal basis, followed by the default-behavior caveat. The item enumeration is long but functionally useful for matching a user's request to this tool. No filler sentences.

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?

A read-only, single-parameter calculator with no output schema; the description covers what is summed and what happens when no services are supplied. The remaining gap is the return shape (total only vs. itemized breakdown) and currency units, which an agent would have to discover by calling it.

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 there is a single optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of omitting 'services' (the whole schedule is returned), which the schema's mere 'not required' does not convey. Repeating an id to count twice is documented in the schema rather than the description.

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 ('sum') and a well-scoped resource ('fixed judicial service fees of 1405, budget law 1405, table 16'), and enumerates the covered items (criminal complaint, criminal record certificate, notice service, objections, appeals, Administrative Justice Court petitions, translation seals). It is legible against most siblings, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the closely related calculate_litigation_fee.

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 gives one concrete usage cue — 'Without services, returns the whole schedule' — which tells the agent it may call with no arguments to get the full fee table. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over calculate_litigation_fee or calculate_execution_fee, so selection among the fee calculators remains implicit.

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