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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds valuable context by labeling the result as 'ESTIMÉ' and noting the theoretical schedule and default échéancier, plus the methodology (courbe en J, XIRR). This goes beyond the annotations to set expectations about the nature of the output.

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 a single, dense paragraph with no wasted filler, but it repeats the title phrase 'Private Equity — échéancier appels/distributions (courbe en J)' at the start, which is redundant. It is structured with semicolons and flows well, but could be tightened. Overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the key verb and scope.

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 simulator with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the default schedule, the outputs, and the estimation caveat. It does not explain the exact calculation logic or return format, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 each parameter (multiple, date_debut, montant_initial) clearly. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only references outputs, not how inputs map. 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 verb ('Projette') and a precise resource ('un fonds de Private Equity sur un échéancier type (8 appels de capital puis 10 distributions)'), and lists concrete outputs (total appelé, total distribué, DPI/TVPI, TRI/XIRR). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools covering fiscal, retraite, or other simulateurs (SCPI, etc.).

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 implies usage by stating it projects a Private Equity fund, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Among siblings, the context is clear enough for a specialized simulator, but explicit exclusion or alternative naming is absent.

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