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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the payout frame ('the figure a court awards against the losing side'), the return shape ('fee in rial per stage with its breakdown and the tariff's articles'), and the unit/calendar conventions (rial, Jalali).

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?

Content is front-loaded with purpose first, then usage routing, then output/units, so an agent gets the essentials immediately. The middle sentence is long and clause-heavy, but each clause (stages, lawyer count, award direction) carries distinct information, so there is little true waste.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are supplied structurally, yet the description still summarizes them ('fee in rial per stage with its breakdown and the tariff's articles'). Combined with the routing guidance, unit conventions, and required-parameter clarity, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds purpose-level meaning the schema does not: agreed_fee_rial exists to test whether a contracted fee exceeds the tariff, and the stage parameter drives a per-stage share calculation. It does not, however, document defaults or enum semantics beyond what the schema already carries.

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 specific verb and resource ('Compute the lawyer's fee (حق‌الوکاله) for a financial claim under the Bar tariff') and immediately scopes it (tiered amount on claim value, per-stage share, multiplied by number of lawyers). It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling calculators such as calculate_stamp_duty and calculate_court_fee.

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 gives an explicit use condition ('Use it when the question is the tariff fee or whether an agreed fee is above it') and names two alternatives with the condition that selects each ('for the stamp on the power of attorney use calculate_stamp_duty, and for court fees calculate_court_fee'). Nothing is left to inference.

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