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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered and the description does not need to restate it. The description adds useful scope detail by enumerating what the estimate itemises (fees, contributions, property minimums). It says nothing about defaults being applied, sensitivity of the result, or the shape of the returned estimate.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the deliverable (itemised estimate) before the inputs that drive it. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations and every clause carries meaning.

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 a 12-parameter calculation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the general output but not its structure or units, and adds no guidance on how the many optional parameters interact. It is adequate to call the tool, but an agent gets no help on interpreting or relying on the result.

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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including defaults and the programme-minimum fallback for purchase_price and annual_rent. The description's 'family composition and property route' phrasing only loosely gestures at the parent/child/spouse parameters. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific computation (itemised estimate of government fees, contributions and property minimums) over clearly stated inputs (family composition, property route). It is unambiguous what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as cost_of_living, malta_statistics, or get_mprp_programme, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 states the inputs the estimate is based on but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions under which an alternative (e.g. get_mprp_programme for programme rules, cost_of_living for general expenses) is preferable, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a given family composition and property route'.

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