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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds two genuinely useful pieces of context: an eligibility control is performed, and the result is indicative ('résultat indicatif', validated against Marcel reference cases). It says nothing about default handling of optional parameters (e.g., what tauxISMere defaults to) or how ineligibility is signaled.

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 compact and front-loads the core comparison before moving to inputs and outputs. Wording is dense but every clause carries information; the only mild redundancy is restating the three paths already implied by the tool's domain.

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 financial simulation tool with no output schema, the description usefully states what is returned (net of each path plus the quote-part de frais et charges) and flags the result as indicative. The remaining gap is around the unused/undocumented eligibility parameters and default tax-rate assumptions, which matter for correct invocation of a 7-parameter 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 29% (2 of 7 parameters), so the description should compensate but largely does not: it names four inputs (dividend, ownership, duration, corporate tax rate) without units or formats, and it never mentions societeExclue, engagementConservation or tmiPersonnePhysique. The two eligibility-related booleans are the most consequential inputs for a mère-fille calculation and remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 comparison (three dividend repatriation paths: individual, ordinary holding, mother-daughter holding under CGI 145/216) with an eligibility check, which is far more precise than the title alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like compare_chemin or compare_allocation, but the niche subject matter makes selection reasonably 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?

Usage is implied by the framing 'compare three paths for a subsidiary dividend' and by the eligibility-control mention, so an agent can infer the scenario. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over compare_chemin, compare_allocation or other simulate_* tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., minimum holding period or documentation requirements).

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