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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions the return format ({agency_fees, scale}). It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any limitations (e.g., sale_price must be positive, which is in the schema). The description carries the full burden but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the output shape.

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 concise, consisting of two efficient sentences that convey purpose, output, and a pointer to related tools. It is front-loaded with the primary action and returns info, with minimal waste.

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?

While the description mentions the output shape, it does not explain the sliding scale formula, when the tool is applicable (e.g., property type or region), or any edge cases. Given the existence of an output schema, the description partially covers completeness but lacks sufficient context for a real estate fee calculator.

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 has one parameter (sale_price) with 100% coverage via its description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, this warrants a baseline score of 3.

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 that the tool calculates French real estate agency fees using a sliding scale, and explicitly mentions the return format. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing list_bundles for related 'immobilier' calculators, which helps an agent understand its specific scope.

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 a hint to see list_bundles for related calculators, implying there might be alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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