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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns annual and monthly share, which is sufficient for a read-only computation. No side effects are mentioned but also none are expected.

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 sentences, front-loading the purpose and then listing inputs and outputs. Every sentence adds value 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?

While the tool has an output schema and the description mentions return values, the mismatch in input description reduces completeness. It does not cover prerequisites or error cases, but for a simple calculator it is adequate.

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 description lists inputs as 'total budget, tantièmes-owned, total tantièmes' but the actual schema has only two parameters: total_charges and ownership_share_pct (a percentage). This mismatch could mislead an agent about required inputs, despite the schema having 100% coverage with clear descriptions.

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 verb 'compute' and specifies the resource 'one owner's share of condominium charges from the budget and tantièmes'. It explicitly mentions the use case for syndic or owner verification, distinguishing it from other calculators in the large sibling list.

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 usage context ('Use for syndic or owner verification') and hints at related tools via 'See list_bundles for related 'immobilier' calculators'. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions.

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