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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with a calculation tool. The description adds context about the type of calculation (tariffs, coefficients, bonuses) and the important integration warning. No contradictions. Slightly more detail on behavioral traits would be beneficial but not necessary given annotations.

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 with zero waste: the first explains the core calculation, the second provides a critical usage warning. Highly efficient and front-loaded with essential 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 the complexity of a tax calculation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage guidelines but does not describe the output format or result details. This is a gap for a tool where the user would want to know what they get back.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context (state/Catalan tariffs, coefficients by wealth, bonuses) that hints at parameter roles but does not provide specific syntax or format beyond what the schema already offers. Marginal added value.

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 clearly states the tool calculates the Impuesto de Donaciones (ISD) in Spain, specifying it uses state or Catalan tariffs, coefficients by wealth, and regional bonuses for lifetime family donations. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'comparar_donacion_vs_herencia' by providing a clear use-case distinction.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (donations in life between family members) and when not to use (comparing donation vs inheritance), directing the user to the alternative tool 'comparar_donacion_vs_herencia'. This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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