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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the calculation and return structure, but does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as being read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. For a calculation tool, the behavior is largely implied, but more transparency could be added.

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 extremely concise, with three short sentences. The first sentence defines the purpose, the second gives the return format, and the third provides a cross-reference. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no nested objects, no enums), the description covers the essential purpose, return structure, and a reference to related tools. It lacks some detail on the meaning of 'deficit' or constraints (e.g., annual_charges must exceed annual_rent?), but is largely adequate for a calculator 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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, but it does provide the return structure, which adds some value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Calculate LMNP (non-professional furnished rental) tax deficit', with an expanded acronym and specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling calculator tools beyond referencing a bundle for related calculators.

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 only usage guidance is 'See list_bundles for related 'immobilier' calculators', which hints at related tools but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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