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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about using 'current official percentages' and statutory rates, but it does not disclose what the function returns or how invalid parameter combinations are handled. This is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, then adds a concise usage rationale. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With high schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the definition is mostly complete. However, the description's 'monetary claim' framing ignores the non_financial case_type, and there is no output schema or return-format hint, so an agent handling a non-financial claim could be uncertain.

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 schema already documents all parameters, their enums, and dependencies. The description reinforces the stage terminology in Persian but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the input schema provides.

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 verb and resource: 'Calculate Iranian court filing fees (هزینهٔ دادرسی)' and names the stages (بدوی / تجدیدنظر / فرجام), which distinguishes it from sibling calculators. It loses a point because it says 'for a monetary claim' even though the schema also supports non_financial cases, making the stated scope slightly narrower than what the tool actually handles.

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 a clear reason to invoke the tool: 'Use this instead of estimating — the rates are statutory and stage-dependent.' This establishes the context for when it should be used, though it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name an alternative sibling tool.

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