regularisation_charges

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the calculation logic (tantièmes, prorata) and the expected result (detailed statement, balance showing either overpayment or additional amount owed). However, it does not clarify side effects such as whether the tool only computes a statement or actually records/mutates accounting data, which is important for a settlement 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 compact and front-loaded with the trigger condition, then enumerates the calculation and output components. It contains no filler, though the legal reference and the gérance/copropriété clarification could arguably be trimmed; overall it earns its length.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description reasonably covers the key context: when to run it, what inputs conceptually participate, how the computation works, and what the result contains (detailed breakdown and balance). It stops short of describing the exact output shape or side effects, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual framing around prorata temporis and the balance, but the individual parameter schema already explains tantièmes, prorata, and provisions. The description therefore contributes little beyond what the structured schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool as the annual regularization of rental charges once the charges exercise is closed and provisions must be settled. It names the specific calculation outputs (tenant share by tantièmes, prorata temporis, detailed breakdown, balance) and is distinguishable in spirit from siblings like quittance_loyer or relance_impaye, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 states a clear triggering condition: use it when the charges exercise is closed and provisions need to be settled. It also covers the two applicable contexts (gérance and copropriété), providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it falls 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.