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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists calculations but does not state that the tool is read-only, deterministic, or side-effect-free, nor does it describe error handling or assumptions. The absence of any safety or side-effect disclosure is a notable gap for a tool that may have legal implications.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs key information: what is computed and the legal reference. The appended French phrase is redundant with the title but short and harmless. No wasted words, though it could be slightly tightened by removing the French repetition.

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 no output schema, the description partially covers return values by naming the computed elements (cap, deadline, retentions, penalty). However, it does not describe the output format, units, or potential edge cases (e.g., when exit_inspection_conformity is false). For a tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, this is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-level syntax or format details, but it provides useful context by linking parameters to legal concepts (cap, deadline, retentions, penalty). This is adequate but not compensatory.

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 specifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('security deposit legal cap, restitution deadline, allowed retentions and any late penalty'), citing the legal basis (art. 22 loi 89-462). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_bordereau_restitution by focusing on calculation rather than document generation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage when computing deposit restitution figures, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternative tools (e.g., generate_bordereau_restitution for document generation). The context is clear enough for a knowledgeable user but lacks direct comparison.

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