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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the calculation sequence (IR + PS + surtaxe after abattements), the LMNP amortization reintegration, the output set (total, components, net seller), and managed exemptions. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the core function, followed by rates, abattements, LMNP behavior, outputs, and legal sources. It is somewhat run-on, but each clause adds information and there is 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 9-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description covers the calculation basis, exemptions, outputs, and legal references, giving an agent enough context to invoke it correctly. Nothing essential for selecting or calling the tool 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?

The schema already documents all 9 parameters at 100% coverage, so the description carries little per-parameter burden. It adds useful context such as the '< 15 000 €' exemption threshold and the LMNP rule, but the parameter-level meaning is largely already present in the 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 names the exact computation ('Impôt total sur la plus-value de cession d'un bien immobilier'), lists the rates (IR 19 %, PS 17,2 %, surtaxe), and states the outputs ('Rend l'impôt total, chaque composante et le net vendeur'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings such as fiscal_surtaxe_pv_immobiliere, which cover only the surtax component.

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 provides clear context: the tool applies to disposals outside the primary residence, after holding-period allowances, and it explicitly lists which exemptions are handled. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use it, so it stops 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.