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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description's only additional content is a list of return fields, which duplicates the output schema rather than adding behavioral context such as rounding, currency assumptions, or rate-year applicability.

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 purpose, with no filler. The return-field enumeration is mildly redundant given the output schema exists, but it is compact and does not obscure the main clause.

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 read-only calculator with a full schema and an output schema, the description is adequate: it names the tax, the domain, and the computed outputs. The missing piece is disambiguation from the heavily overlapping Moroccan tax siblings in this toolset.

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%, so all three parameters (annual_rent_mad, expenses_pct, dependents) are already documented in the schema, including the 40% default. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or interaction, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calculate Moroccan property income tax'), and gives the French/English aliases (profit foncier / revenus fonciers), which separates it conceptually from the many other calculate_moroccan_* siblings. However, it never names the closest sibling calculate_moroccan_income_tax, so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'See list_bundles for related calculators' is a navigation pointer, not a condition for selecting this tool over calculate_moroccan_income_tax or calculate_property_capital_gains.

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