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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it always returns warnings, cohabiting partners inherit nothing, and jointly-owned assets are outside these rules. It does not cover all edge cases but adds significant context.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second emphasizes critical warnings. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers key outputs (who inherits, warnings) but lacks details on handling foreign assets and partial wills. Given 6 parameters and no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and the description adds meaning by explaining that jointly-owned assets pass by survivorship and clarifying that maritalStatus only counts marriage/civil partnership, enriching the schema's descriptions.

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 the tool applies England & Wales intestacy rules to determine who inherits and how much, with a specific date cutoff. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., calculate_iht) by focusing solely on intestacy.

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 implies when to use (intestacy scenarios) and warns about jointly-owned assets passing by survivorship, which guides exclusion. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., if a valid will exists).

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