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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the algorithm (DGI progressive brackets, family deductions) and return fields, which adds value beyond schema. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a pure computation (safe), any rate limits, or edge cases like negative income.

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 purpose and method in the first sentence, and specifying return fields in the second. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant information.

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 complexity of a tax calculator with progressive brackets and an existing output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what, how, and output. However, it could add a brief note about the bracket structure or dependency on the DGI system for completeness, but overall sufficient.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'family deductions' which relates to the dependents parameter, but the schema already describes dependents in detail. No additional semantic meaning is provided beyond what is in 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 clearly states the tool calculates Moroccan income tax (IR) using DGI progressive brackets and family deductions, which is specific. However, among many sibling tools, there are other Moroccan tax calculators (e.g., calculate_moroccan_cnss, calculate_moroccan_vat) and no explicit differentiation from them, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 context that this tool computes IR with family deductions and refers to list_bundles for related calculators. It implies use for Moroccan income tax but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like other Moroccan tax tools for CNSS or VAT.

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