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

Annotations already establish this as a pure, idempotent, non-destructive read. Beyond that, the description discloses actual output content — the prescribing rule is cited, and for DRAT appeals the appeal period and statutory pre-deposit are also returned. That is meaningful behavioral detail the annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences: the capability and its three cases come first, then the trigger condition. No filler, no restating of the title, and every clause carries 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must hint at returns; it does so by naming the cited rule, appeal period, and pre-deposit. It stops short of describing the applicant-driven dual-fee output, but for a deterministic calculator this is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already spells out what amount_inr means per filing type, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the general framing ('from the amount of debt') and does not mention the applicant parameter or the both-fees-shown fallback.

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 states a specific verb ('Calculates') and resource ('the court fee prescribed') and enumerates the three exact filing scenarios it handles (DRT original application, SARFAESI Section 17 application, DRAT appeal), matching the schema enum. No sibling tool covers fee calculation, and the scope is unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use when someone asks what it costs to file before the DRT or DRAT.' That is clear context, but it offers no when-not guidance and does not name alternatives (e.g. pointing to sarfaesi_timeline or find_drt_bench for adjacent questions).

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