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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It accurately describes the tool as an estimation calculation with no mention of destructive actions, which is reasonable. However, it lacks details on data freshness, accuracy limitations, or side effects, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

Three concise sentences: first defines purpose and components, second clarifies savings sign, third highlights importance. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: inputs (communes, income, wealth, family), calculations (tax, rent, health), and output interpretation. However, it could mention that wealth and children are optional, and specify the return format beyond a monetary value.

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 67% (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds overall context (household-level, components) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate for the missing descriptions for 'married' and 'children'.

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?

Description clearly states the tool estimates net yearly CHF impact of moving between two Swiss communes, specifying components (tax, rent, health premiums). The phrase 'flagship relocation calculation' distinguishes it from siblings like commune_tax (single commune) and compare_cantons (canton-level).

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 clear context for when to use the tool (relocation between communes, financial impact evaluation). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or offer alternatives, though the context implies it's the primary relocation tool.

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