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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operating context beyond that: what is being computed (stamp + fund + Bar shares), the scope limitation (one stage, one case), and the units ('Amounts in rial; dates in the Jalali calendar').

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 what is computed, with no filler. The legal citation and unit conventions are packed into the same breath as the purpose.

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 8-parameter, enum-heavy read-only calculator with full schema coverage, the description tells the agent what the result comprises and in which units, so nothing essential for a correct call is missing. A brief note on the return shape (since no output schema exists) would have made it complete.

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 the parameter descriptions themselves carry the domain nuance (defaults for membership, contract_fee floor, criminal band mapping). The description adds only the rial/Jalali unit convention and the single-stage scope, so the 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?

Names a specific verb-resource pair (the tax stamp on a وکالت‌نامه plus fund and Bar shares), cites its legal basis (مادهٔ ۱۰۳), and fixes the scope to 'one stage of one case.' An agent can distinguish this from the sibling calculators (calculate_mehrieh, calculate_late_payment) purely from the description.

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?

'Call it for any question about what a lawyer pays to file a وکالت‌نامه, and never work the figure out yourself' gives explicit when-to-use guidance and steers the agent away from self-computation. It does not, however, mention when a different calculator is the right one (e.g. mehrieh or late-payment questions that may also touch a وکالت‌نامه).

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