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

Annotations already cover the read-only, closed-world, non-destructive profile, so the description's added value is domain behavior: commission is not regulated, quoted provincial rates are only starting points, and any rate can be overridden via explicit parameters. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about how results are presented or what precedence applies when province and override parameters conflict.

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 tightly packed sentences, no filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded. The density comes at a small cost — multiple distinct claims (tax, split, net proceeds, provincial defaults, negotiability) are compressed into one line each.

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 11-parameter tool with only one required field and a fully described schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and implicitly names the outputs (commission, tax, split, net proceeds). With no output schema, it could be more explicit about the shape of the returned numbers, and it does not clarify default-vs-override precedence.

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% and each parameter, including the override fields and their tiered/flat applicability, is already documented in the schema. The description restates at a high level that province sets starting rates and overrides exist, adding little beyond structured data; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: "Seller's real estate commission in Canada" plus the components it computes (commission, GST/HST, listing vs buyer split, net proceeds). An agent can tell it is a seller-side commission calculator rather than a generic cost tool, though it never names the near sibling cost_of_selling or closing_costs to draw the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by the framing — a seller estimating commission on a sale. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as cost_of_selling or closing_costs. The negotiability note is useful context but is not routing guidance.

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