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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that it returns an annual and monthly share, which is useful but thin given an output schema already exists; no rate limits, auth, or rounding/currency behavior are disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, inputs, return values, and a cross-reference in a compact set of sentences. The 'Inputs:' enumeration is mildly redundant with the schema but does not bloat the text.

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 simple two-parameter read-only calculator with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, inputs, and output shape. Only the minor input-naming mismatch and absence of any note on currency/rounding keep it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so the two parameters are already documented. The description's input list ('total budget, tantièmes-owned, total tantièmes') names three inputs against two actual parameters and frames them as absolute tantièmes while the schema uses a percentage, adding slight ambiguity rather than new meaning.

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 and resource ('Compute one owner's share of condominium charges from the budget and tantièmes'), which is precise and unambiguous. It does not differentiate against a close alternative calculator, but the 'immobilier' pointer and the domain-specific framing make the purpose clear.

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?

'Use for syndic or owner verification' gives an explicit persona/scenario for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or naming a competing calculator, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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