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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Estime' implies a read-only calculation, but the description does not explicitly state it has no side effects, requires no authentication, or always succeeds under the given parameters. It also does not mention what the agent should expect regarding response format or whether it is a pure function of the inputs. For a no-annotation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the return value and its components. The 'Même logique que le site et GET /api/calculate' clause is a light anchor for consistency, though it is not strictly necessary. There is no wasted wording, making it well structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description partially covers the return value by naming the fee components, but it does not describe the exact response shape or whether the total is also itemized. It also fails to mention how department-specific rates are handled or when to use compare_departements/get_departement_info. For a 6-parameter financial calculator, an agent would benefit from one more sentence about outputs and conditions.

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 all six parameters already have clear descriptions; the baseline is 3. The description adds only a rough mapping to inputs ('prix, département, type de bien, profil') and lists the fee components, which is helpful but not substantially better than the schema. It does not clarify the exact meaning of 'profil' beyond what the 'primo' parameter describes.

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 uses a specific verb ('Estime') and resource ('les frais de notaire'), naming the underlying components (DMTO, émoluments, CSI, débours). It is clearly distinct from siblings like compare_departements and get_departement_info, though it does not explicitly name them. It would be a 5 if it explicitly identified when to choose this tool over a 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 implies the tool is used when estimating notary fees from price, department, property type, and profile, but it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling. The reference to 'Même logique que le site et GET /api/calculate' hints at a mirror of another endpoint but does not provide decision criteria. This is adequate context, but it leaves the alternative-selection reasoning to the agent.

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