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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it explains the calculation principle (quote-part by tantièmes and prorata temporis) and the nature of the result (décompte détaillé, solde with overpayment or additional charge). It does not address edge cases or error behavior, but it is strong for a computation tool with annotation coverage.

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 dense but front-loaded with the usage condition, then the purpose and calculation summary. Every phrase carries meaning, though the punctuation and parenthetical asides make it slightly less scannable than an ideal single-purpose framing.

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 read-only computation tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers when to use it, what it calculates, and what kind of balance it produces. It does not describe output structure in detail, but since no output schema exists, it provides enough to understand the returned result at a high level.

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 itself already documents all parameters in detail. The description adds conceptual framing around tantièmes and prorata temporis, but this largely repeats relationships already stated in the schema field descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: annual reconciliation of rental service charges (régularisation annuelle des charges locatives) under décret 87-713. It also clarifies the two contexts (gérance per tenant, copropriété per tantièmes de lot). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Opens with 'QUAND l'exercice de charges est clos et qu'il faut solder les provisions,' giving a clear triggering condition for use. It also names both management contexts in which it applies. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned, so it falls short of a 5.

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