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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it describes the calculation, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies data (e.g., 'solder les provisions' implies a write), permissions required, or side effects. This lack of disclosure is a significant 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 two sentences and front-loads the condition. It is informative but slightly verbose due to parentheses. Overall, it is efficient and clear.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose and calculation but lacks explicit return value details and side effects. It is moderately complete but could be more comprehensive.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining key parameters (tantiemes, charges) and the calculation logic (pro rata temporis, lot shares). It partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it does not detail all parameters.

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: annual charge regularization in property management, specifying when it is used (when charge exercise is closed) and what it computes (tenant share, pro rata, balance). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on charge settlement.

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 provides a clear condition for use ('QUAND l'exercice de charges est clos...'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings. It gives sufficient context for a specialized tool.

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