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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the recalculation side effect and states that the tool returns the PDF path and a summary of key amounts. It does not mention permissions, failure modes, or whether it modifies existing fiscal-year data beyond recalculation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states what is generated, the second covers pre-generation recalculation and the return value. The tool's scope is front-loaded before output details.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the output (path and key-amount summary), the document type, and a notable pre-step. It is missing error/edge-case behavior, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It adds that 'year' refers to the exercice fiscal for which the form is generated, but it does not specify the expected integer format or range beyond the schema's type. The single parameter is simple enough that this is adequate but not rich.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it generates the LMNP tax package (liasse fiscale LMNP) as a PDF and enumerates the exact forms (2031-SD, 2033-A, etc.). This concrete scope clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as generate_fec or export_documents.

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 gives clear context: use it to produce a PDF tax return for a given fiscal year, and mentions the fiscal year may be recalculated first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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