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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real substance beyond them: it discloses the 2026 rule vintage, that gaps in modelling are documented, and that official sources are provided, all of which matter for trusting downstream answers. It does not say how the coverage info is shaped (prose vs. enumerated list cards), a minor omission.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the resource, lists the three content areas, and closes with the usage rule. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the definition gives enough for an agent to decide to call it. The only gap is that the return shape (structured coverage list vs. free-form doc) is left implicit because no output schema exists.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading hints about inputs are given.

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 names the resource (Morocco tax rules applied by the calculators, 2026 edition) and enumerates what it contains: options taken, what is not modelled, and official sources. That is specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling calculators, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', so the reader infers this is a reference/coverage tool.

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?

"Call it before answering a question the other tools may not cover" gives a concrete trigger condition and implicitly contrasts it with the calculation siblings. It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use case (e.g. skip it for straightforward net_salary lookups), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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