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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that VPT is the tax authority's valuation and instructs to ask the user, which is useful. However, it does not describe the output format, edge cases (e.g., invalid municipality), or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a calculation tool.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the key caveat about VPT. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is computed, for which property type, and the crucial input constraint. It is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it could mention the return value or dependence on an urban rate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning by clarifying VPT as a tax authority valuation, not purchase price, and telling the agent to ask the user for it. This goes beyond the schema's short description and directly affects parameter handling.

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 function: computing yearly IMI for an urban property given VPT and municipality, at the urban rate. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like imi_rate (rate), imt_calculate (IMT), and request_consultation by focusing on annual cost calculation.

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 gives an important input guidance (VPT is not purchase price, ask the user) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like imi_rate. Usage is implied by the function description, but no exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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