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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the shape of the return values (cash-flow, imposition à la cession, capital net per regime) and an important caveat that the result is indicative / validated against reference cases. That is useful but modest; it says nothing about units, precision limits, or what drives divergence between the two regimes.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then scope/alternative, then an explicit Entrées/Sortie breakdown. No filler sentences. Slight cost from the inaccurate input enumeration, which is length that misleads rather than informs.

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's output summary and the 'résultat indicatif' disclaimer carry real weight, and the single-associé scope is stated. Missing, for a simulation of this complexity, are unit conventions (euros vs percentages, annual vs total rents) and any note on how the horizon affects the cession taxation output.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description should compensate, and its input list ('prix, loyers, charges, crédit, horizon, tranche') partially does. However it names a 'crédit' input that does not exist in the schema and omits valeurTerrain, tauxIS and dureeAmortissement, which are the parameters most in need of explanation beyond the schema's terse defaults. This makes the parameter guidance partly noisy rather than additive; baseline 3 for 50% coverage.

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 comparison verb applied to two named regimes (SCI à l'IR vs SCI à l'IS) under a constant property, rent and horizon assumption. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling simulate_sci_multi by scope (single associé vs multi-associé). An agent can pick it 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?

It gives the selecting condition: this tool covers one associé, and for splitting income across multiple associés at IR the agent is routed to simulate_sci_multi. That is an explicit alternative plus the condition that selects it.

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