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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is fully covered structurally. The description adds domain context (amortization + annual tax deduction under the LMNP regime) but nothing about inputs limits, expected computation model, or error conditions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. The second sentence is a targeted cross-reference rather than padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, so this is close to complete. The only real gap is the absence of any differentiation from the adjacent calculate_lmnp_deficit tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and all three required parameters (property_value, furniture_value, annual_rent) are documented with units in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the domain context that property and furniture values drive amortization, but no additional syntax, ranges, or interpretation beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Calculate LMNP rental property amortization and annual tax deduction') and scopes it to the French tax regime, which is enough for an agent to distinguish this from generic rental-yield tools. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling calculate_lmnp_deficit, leaving that separation to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'LMNP... French tax regime' framing tells an agent this applies to French furnished-rental tax computations, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or 'use X instead' guidance. The 'See list_bundles for related immobilier calculators' line is a discovery pointer rather than routing guidance.

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