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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses the side effect of creating the fiscal year ('Crée l'exercice s'il n'existe pas encore'), details of the depreciation cap and carryforward ('plafonnement et report'), and that amounts are returned in euros. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and components, and the second adds side effects and return currency. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy.

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 and absence of an output schema, the description covers key outputs and side effects well, including depreciation capping and currency. However, it does not describe the exact response structure or format, which would be helpful for a tool returning multiple computed values.

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 input schema has only one parameter (year) with zero description coverage. The description indirectly clarifies that 'year' refers to the fiscal year ('pour une année donnée') but does not explain validation, format, or constraints. This partially compensates for the lack of schema description but is not comprehensive.

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 'Calcule le résultat fiscal complet d'un exercice LMNP pour une année donnée' and lists the specific components (recettes, charges, amortissements, résultat fiscal net, solde TVA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compute_depreciation and compute_tva, which focus on narrower aspects.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (for a complete fiscal year calculation) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. It mentions side effects (creating the exercise if missing), which is useful, but falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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