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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds substantive domain behavior instead — the grace period and rent multipliers that drive the calculation, and the fact that it runs an external official calculator at dira-law.co.il. It does not say what the response looks like (amount, breakdown, or failure mode when the calculator is unavailable), which is a gap given no output schema exists.

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 legal basis and the mechanism, then the implementation note. Dense but every clause carries meaning; minor redundancy between the section reference and the restatement of the remedy.

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 read-only calculation tool with fully documented parameters, the description supplies the legal grounding an agent needs to trust the output. The remaining shortfall is that with no output schema, the return value (single figure vs. itemized computation, currency, rounding) is never characterized.

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 every parameter including the optional contract_monthly_compensation and the force-majeure flag is already documented. The description adds legal framing (grace period, multipliers of rent of a similar apartment) that explains why monthly_rent matters, but contributes no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb+resource: computing statutory compensation for late delivery of a new apartment under section 5A of the Israeli Sale (Apartments) Law. It also distinguishes the subject matter from siblings such as warranty_periods and interest_and_linkage by naming the legal basis and the calculator it runs.

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 scenario (a developer delivering an apartment late) is implied clearly enough that an agent can infer when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use phrasing and no named alternative tool for adjacent questions like linkage or warranty. No prerequisites are stated, e.g. whether section 5A applies depends on the contract date regime.

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