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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: inheritance has no general monetary exemption, heir class and asset kind affect rates, pre/post-1395 death dates differ, and property assessment uses valori not market price. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the tax types in the first sentence and the most critical caveats immediately after. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 a tool with 8 parameters and four tax modes, the description covers the trickiest legal conditions and tells the agent when to ask for more information. The absence of an output schema means the return format is not documented, but the tool's purpose as a calculator makes the result type inferable, so this is only a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the inheritance value has NO general monetary exemption and that the property value_toman must be the valori-based amount rather than market price. This helps an agent interpret the numeric parameters correctly.

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 states a clear verb and resource: calculate Iranian taxes for salary, property-transfer, inheritance, or rental. It enumerates the exact tax types, making the tool's scope immediately understandable, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling calculate_inheritance, so it falls just short of fully distinguishing among siblings.

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 explicit usage context: for inheritance, the agent should ask before calling because death-date era changes the calculation, and property tax is based on valori rather than market price. It does not state when-not-to-use the tool or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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