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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it explains that missing transmission inputs cause refusal, that netRachat is a contract net distinct from household net, and details the age-based transmission tax regime and allowance sharing.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then inputs, outputs, the netRachat caveat, the transmission regime, and the refusal condition. Every sentence contributes to a complex tax-calculation tool, though the paragraph could be slightly more scannable for 15-parameter invocation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, nested arrays, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, required inputs, output amounts, tax regime rules, and refusal conditions. It lacks explicit sibling-tool routing and does not explain all optional parameter nuances, but the schema and annotations fill most remaining gaps.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage across 15 parameters, the schema carries much of the load. The description names the main required inputs and the transmission-specific structures (primesParAge, beneficiairesTransmission with lien and quote-part), but it does not clarify several optional parameters such as tmi, plusValuesUC, primesAvant2017, or the significance of ageAssure versus age at payment.

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 specific verb and resource: calculating the tax treatment of a life insurance contract (assurance-vie), with explicit modes rachat, avance, and transmission. The resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling simulators for CTO, PEA, PER, IFI, and Dutreil, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the required inputs and that transmission calculation is refused without primesParAge or beneficiairesTransmission, which gives clear invocation conditions. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling simulators such as simulate_cto or simulate_pea, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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