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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is stateless, indicative, and outputs via POST /api/v1/fiscal/synthese in JSON or PDF. It also notes limitations ('dans la limite des documents/données fournis'). While it doesn't explicitly say it doesn't modify data, the stateless mention implies it's read-only. A slightly higher score is not given because it doesn't detail error handling or data retention.

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 somewhat verbose and mixes French and English, which could confuse an English-only agent. However, it is front-loaded with the key question and purpose. Some sentences could be removed or condensed without losing meaning (e.g., repeating 'indicatif' multiple times). Overall, it is adequate but not optimally concise.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the essential purpose and usage context but lacks detail on parameter formats and return structure. It mentions output format options (json, html, pdf) but not the structure of the JSON response. For a stateless calculation tool, this is minimally complete but leaves the agent guessing about how to interpret results.

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?

Parameter semantic coverage in the JSON schema is minimal (only 14% of parameters have descriptions). The description mentions two required parameters ('recettes_brutes + charges_deductibles') but provides no further explanation of their meaning, units, or constraints. Other parameters like 'annee', 'proprietaire_nom', etc. are not described in the schema or the description. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate by elaborating on parameter semantics, but it fails to do so.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it generates a fiscal synthesis comparing micro-foncier (30% allowance, 15,000€ threshold) and réel regime (2044 form) for rental income. The opening question explicitly addresses when a landlord would use it, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools which are unrelated (e.g., rent receipts, maintenance reports).

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'QUAND un bailleur se demande s'il a intérêt au micro-foncier ou au réel — typiquement à l'approche de la déclaration.' It also provides clear usage boundaries: 'À titre indicatif dans la limite des documents/données fournis — ni conseil fiscal ni déclaration ; renvoyer vers un professionnel.' This tells the agent exactly when to use it and when not to rely on it as definitive advice.

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