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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety and behavior burden. It discloses important nuances: inheritance rates depend on asset kind and heir class, no general exemption, pre/post-1395 date differences, and property basis. This adds significant context beyond a simple calculation, but it does not cover behavioral specifics for salary or rental taxes.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, then concise caveats. No filler or redundancy, 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers key edge cases (inheritance exemptions, date changes, property basis) but does not explain return values or salary/rental calculation nuances. However, the comprehensive schema fills most gaps, making this adequately complete overall.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds some semantic value by clarifying the property basis (value_toman) and inheritance dependency on asset_kind/heir_class, but this is marginal given the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 it calculates four Iranian tax types with a specific verb-resource pair ('Calculate Iranian salary, property-transfer, inheritance or rental tax'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'calculate_inheritance', which overlaps with the inheritance tax scope, so it misses the 5-level distinction.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool and special handling: 'ask before calling' for inheritance and property basis being 'valore ma'ati', not market price. But it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions with sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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