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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main computations (gross/net yield, cashflow, recommended tax regime) but does not mention assumptions, limitations, or that it is a read-only calculation. This is moderate transparency—sufficient for a simulation tool but lacking methodological caveats.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core function ('Compute gross/net rental yield') and lists key outputs. The French keyword suffix is a minor addition that aids localization without adding unnecessary bulk. No fluff or 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?

With six required parameters and no output schema, the description clearly states what is computed but does not specify the return format, units, or potential edge cases (e.g., invalid inputs). It covers the essential purpose but leaves gaps for an agent needing more operational detail.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond raw field names by linking parameters to the tool's purpose: it explains that per-regime taxation depends on furnishing type and TMI, and that cashflow incorporates rent and charges. This enriches the schema's baseline description.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compute' and clearly identifies the resource: gross/net rental yield, per-regime taxation, cashflow, and recommended tax regime. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like simulate_irl, which focus on rent index adjustments. The French keywords reinforce the purpose without ambiguity.

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 clearly implies this tool is for analyzing rental investment profitability, which is distinct from other simulation siblings. While it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X', the context is clear from the name and content. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the purpose is self-evident.

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