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

The annotations declare destructiveHint: true, while the description says the tool creates income, which is a direct contradiction. The description does not disclose any side effects, irreversibility, or permission requirements. The only added behavioral details are currency format and source enums, which do not address the destructive nature flagged by 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 concise, containing exactly two sentences that lead with the primary action and then provide key domain constraints. Every clause adds value, and it is well-structured for quick consumption.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and a zero-coverage schema, the description is far too sparse. It omits required fields, return behavior, and any interaction with related entities (e.g., property, tax calculations). The description is adequate only for a very simple tool, which this is not.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only explains two parameters: amount (euros) and source (enumerated values). The required parameters property_id and income_date are not mentioned, nor are the many optional fields like tva_rate, platform_fee, or guest_name. This leaves most of the 12 parameters semantically unexplained.

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 function: 'Crée un revenu locatif pour un bien LMNP' (Creates rental income for an LMNP property). It uses a specific verb ('crée') and resource ('revenu locatif'), and differentiates from sibling tools like create_expense and create_furniture by specifying the income context. The source examples further clarify the scope.

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 when to use the tool (recording rental income) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria. It says the source can be airbnb, booking, etc., which gives context, but there is no comparison to other create_* tools or guidance on prerequisites.

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