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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses provenance (BAZNAS RI, 2026, SK 14/2026 and SK 15/2026), which tells the agent the figures are officially sourced and year-stamped. It does not state that this is a static read-only lookup or describe the shape of the returned data, leaving gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 dense sentence with the source and year front-loaded, followed by the two covered data sets. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, 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?

For a small optional-filter reference lookup with no output schema, the description covers the content, issuer, and legal basis of the figures adequately. It stops short of hinting at the response structure (e.g., per-code figures versus aggregate), which is the only notable omission.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents category (fitrah/penghasilan, omit for all) and zakat_code. The description reinforces what each category contains (fitrah vs nisab/rate for penghasilan), adding modest meaning about the semantics of the enum values but no syntax guidance for zakat_code.

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?

States a concrete resource (BAZNAS RI 2026 zakat figures) and enumerates the two data sets it returns: fitrah and the nisab/rate of zakat penghasilan dan jasa. It is clearly distinguishable in domain from sibling rate tools like get_tax_rates or get_bpjs_rates, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with any sibling.

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 says what data exists but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many get_* reference tools in the sibling list. An agent must infer that this is the zakat lookup simply from the resource name.

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