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 covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns shares as fractions and optionally in euros, and it explicitly excludes inheritance tax calculations. It does not, however, need to restate the read-only nature already covered by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, followed by required inputs, return format and exclusions. It is somewhat dense and includes a full English translation that repeats the Italian content, but for a complex legal calculation tool this redundancy is minor and the structure remains clear.

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 nine parameters, two enums, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers purpose, usage, required inputs, conditional parameter relevance, return format, and scope limitations including the relevant sibling 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds conditional relevance by noting that spouse and number of children are needed, while parents and siblings matter only when there are no children or descendants. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying which inputs drive the calculation in different scenarios.

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 states a specific calculation task: under Italian law, it determines who inherits, each heir's share when there is no will, and the forced share reserved to spouse, children and parents. It clearly distinguishes itself from imposte_successione_donazione by explicitly excluding inheritance taxes.

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?

It states when to use the tool (when asked who inherits, how much each receives, or how much can be disposed of by will) and names the alternative for tax calculations. It also sets scope boundaries by referring grandparents, other relatives, renunciations and indignity cases to a separate study.

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