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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation ('Compute') and outputs ('returns new rent, % change, monthly/annual increase'), making clear this is a read-only calculation. The legal context adds useful behavioral framing, though edge cases or validation rules are not discussed.

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?

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb, and includes a helpful French translation snippet. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has 6 required params and no output schema, but the description sufficiently explains purpose and return values. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling simulate_irl_by_quarters, leaving potential ambiguity about which tool to invoke. Adding a note about direct value input vs quarter lookup would make it more 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?

Input schema covers all 6 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that two IRL values are used but does not elaborate on formats or relationships beyond the schema. No need for more given the schema richness.

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 action ('Compute'), the resource ('revised rent after annual indexation'), and the input nature ('from two IRL index values'). It also cites the legal article (art. 17-1 loi 89-462) and distinguishes from sibling simulate_irl_by_quarters by emphasizing direct index values rather than quarter references.

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 you have two IRL values to compute a revised rent, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulate_irl_by_quarters. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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