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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the holding-period abatement behavior and enumerates return fields, but since a full output schema exists those field names are largely redundant; no assumptions, limits, or edge cases are disclosed.

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, with no filler. The enumerated return-value sentence is partly wasted given the output schema, which slightly dilutes the otherwise tight structure.

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 three-parameter, fully-documented calculator with annotations and an output schema, the description is close to sufficient. It omits any note on which abatement schedule (IR vs PS) it applies or whether inputs are gross figures, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions holding-period abatements, which loosely maps to holding_years, but adds no units, rounding, bounds, or interpretation guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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 with jurisdiction and tax type: "Calculate French property capital gains tax after holding-period abatements." The 'French property' qualifier implicitly separates it from calculate_capital_gains_property, calculate_us_capital_gains and calculate_crypto_tax_fr, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 guidance is a pointer to list_bundles for 'finance-france' calculators, which is a discovery aid rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when this tool is appropriate versus the generic calculate_capital_gains_property or the other national CGT tools.

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