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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about using the official tariff and not estimating, but it does not describe what happens with invalid inputs, whether it is a read-only calculation, or the output format. Some value but limited depth.

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 three sentences with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: stating the calculation, naming the alternative, and giving a usage rule. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Together with the rich input schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the tariff year, distinguishes from a related fee, and warns against estimation. The tool is a straightforward calculator, so the lack of an output schema is not a major gap; the expected result is implicitly a fee amount.

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%, with detailed descriptions of all three parameters including the enum for doc_type and clarifications like 'for real estate this is ارزش معاملاتی, not market price'. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already handles it, so 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 clearly states the tool calculates the notary office's fee (حق‌التحریر) from the official 1405 tariff for official notary documents. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and explicitly distinguishes itself from حق‌الثبت, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Distinct from حق‌الثبت (use calculate_stamp_duty for that)' names an alternative tool, and 'Never estimate the tariff' sets a clear constraint on how to use the tool. This covers when to use it and when not to.

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