Suxession — French Inheritance Tax Engine

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds value beyond it: the free-tier boundary, the premium exclusion, and that a second death is included when a spouse exists. These are behavioral facts not encoded in annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and cardinality, then the free/premium boundary. Three short sentences with minimal waste, though the pricing boundary sentence could be trimmed slightly.

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?

With readOnlyHint annotations and an output schema present, the description needn't explain returns or safety. It covers scope, cardinality, and the free/premium limit, leaving only the scenario object shape unaddressed, which the nested schema partially handles.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% (the 'scenarios' array itself is undocumented), but nested $defs fields carry descriptions and the description supplies the '1 à 5' cardinality limit that the schema does not enforce via maxItems. It adds partial meaning without explaining the scenario object structure.

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 and resource ('Compare 1 à 5 scénarios de transmission') with concrete examples ('usufruit total vs quart en pleine propriété') that make the output kind evident. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like simuler_droits_succession, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Implies when the tool applies and draws a scope line ('analyse premium, hors de ce périmètre gratuit'), which is useful. But it never names an alternative tool or the condition that would route an agent to simuler_droits_succession or explorer_optimisations instead, so routing guidance is implicit only.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'active l'accès premium' is consistent with a state-changing but non-destructive write. It adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail: the code is passed through as-is with no normalization. It omits idempotency, error behavior for bad codes, and any rate or retry constraints.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the action is front-loaded and the qualifier about code handling follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations already carry the safety profile. The description covers what is done and how the input is treated, leaving only failure-mode behavior unspecified for a single-parameter mutation tool.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning about where the code comes from (post-payment confirmation page) and that it is transmitted unmodified, but it gives no format, length, or validation details. Partial compensation for a low-coverage 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 states a specific verb and resource: it activates premium access using an access code received after payment. It also clarifies the code's origin (confirmation page), which makes the purpose unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings, though the sibling list (scenario comparison, estimation, simulation) suggests they are unrelated operations.

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 rather than stated: the agent learns the code is issued after payment and shown on the confirmation page, which is the precondition for calling this tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no guidance on what to do if the code is invalid or already redeemed.

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

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

With readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description adds real behavioral context: individual levers are never named or quantified in the response, the price (99 €, one-time) and a payment link are included, and the calculation is free and identical to the site. This commercial/output disclosure is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then the output restriction, then the commercial terms and the sibling hand-off. No filler.

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 tool with annotations, a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: it is a teaser, levers stay hidden, and there is a paid unlock path. The simple-case-only limitation is carried by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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% and the single nested situation object is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraint information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (estime), resource (économie potentielle) and scope (25 leviers, calcul identique au site). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling explorer_optimisations by naming which tool reveals the detail.

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?

Makes clear this is the free teaser and that explorer_optimisations reveals details only after purchase, so the agent understands the teaser-vs-detail relationship. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over comparer_scenarios or simuler_droits_succession, but the context is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotation readOnlyHint=true already marks this as a safe read. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: a paid gating requirement (99 € premium), the unlock dependency, and the shape of the result set. It does not discuss latency, caching, or limits, but the auth/gating disclosure is the important behavioral fact here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable, followed by the access precondition and the notary hand-off. No filler, though the paywall price is arguably incidental to tool selection.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details are covered structurally, and the description still adds the gating prerequisite and result categories. The unexplained 'code' parameter and the absence of explicit sibling comparison are the only real gaps for a tool with nested input and an output schema.

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 50%, and the nested situation object is well annotated in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and says nothing about the required 'code' parameter, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 deliverable ('Résultats de l'optimiseur complet') and enumerates its contents (leviers, montants, articles CGI, avertissements), so the agent knows what comes back. It distinguishes itself from estimer_economie_optimisation by being the 'complete' optimizer, though it never names that sibling directly to make the contrast explicit.

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 names a hard precondition (active access unlocked via deverrouiller_acces) and a downstream step (finalization with a notary), which is real routing guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over comparer_scenarios or estimer_economie_optimisation, so the choice among siblings is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context ('Gratuit, sans compte') that tells the agent no auth/account is needed, plus it discloses the response content (droits par héritier, articles CGI, liens guide). It does not discuss limits or failure modes beyond the 'cas simple' scoping.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the core computation before the input list and output summary. Nothing is wasted, though the input enumeration is partly redundant with the schema.

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 a nested-object schema, an output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it computes, scope limitation, no-account access, and output shape. The main residual gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools like comparer_scenarios.

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 the schema already documents every field including which situation_conjugale values make conjoint/option_conjoint relevant. The description only recaps a few field names without adding format or interaction detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Calcule les droits de succession français (cas simple)' names the exact computation and scopes it. It lists the main inputs (patrimoine, conjoint, enfants, régime matrimonial). However it does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling tool, so sibling routing still requires inference.

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 '(cas simple)' qualifier implies a boundary, and the nested schema description routes complex cases (assurance-vie, donations, démembrement, SCI) to a wizard, but the top-level description states no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition and does not point at any sibling alternative.

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