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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool produces total costs and an estimated savings figure, but does not disclose calculation assumptions, input constraints, or output format. With the annotation bar lowered, this is adequate but not rich.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does and what it returns, with no filler. It is concise while covering the core purpose and output categories.

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 simple four-number calculator, the description plus self-explanatory parameter names (capital, duration in years, rates as percentages) may be minimally sufficient, and it does state the two output categories. However, with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no mention of constraints or calculation basis, it leaves the agent to guess at currency, formula, and return shape.

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 0%, and the description only hints that taux_groupe_pct/taux_delegue_pct correspond to bank vs delegated scenarios; it does not explain units, acceptable ranges, or the roles of capital and duree_annees beyond their names. Parameter names carry some meaning, but the description adds almost no semantic value over the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific action ('Compare') and identifies the exact resources: group borrower insurance vs delegated under the Lemoine law, along with outputs (total costs, estimated savings). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'simuler_cout_assurance_emprunteur', which appears to simulate a single cost scenario.

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 purpose implies the tool is for comparing bank vs delegated rates, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over 'simuler_cout_assurance_emprunteur' or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so an agent must infer usage from the description.

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