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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context, which it does: it names the output (fiscal cost per path) and discloses conditional behavior – a temporal-conflict warning is emitted when the sale horizon does not exceed the sum of the collective and individual commitment durations. It stops short of describing the exact return shape or units.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, inputs second, output and edge-case behavior third. No filler, and the warning condition is stated where an agent will see it.

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 an eight-parameter tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the definition covers the essentials (inputs, output, one warning case). Gaps remain: units for the duration/horizon parameters, defaults for the four optional inputs, and the treatment of tmiFrance, which the schema says does not enter the calculation.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates seven of the eight inputs (share value, cost basis, number of children, director age, sale horizon, collective and individual commitment durations), which helps agents map business concepts to parameters, but it adds no units, defaults, or constraints for the optional parameters.

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 (Calcule) and a precisely scoped resource: four business-transmission paths with and without the Dutreil pact, anchored to CGI art. 787 B. This clearly separates it from siblings like simulate_av, simulate_cto, or simulate_ifi, which cover other tax vehicles.

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 input list implies the context (business owners planning a transfer with children), but the description never says explicitly when to pick this tool over the other simulate_* siblings, nor does it state preconditions or exclusions.

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