calculate_inheritance_basic

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the valid spouse values ('husband', 'wife', or None) and the return format ('share fractions and amounts per heir'). However, it does not mention edge cases, assumptions (e.g., what happens with invalid heir combinations), or any side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that each add distinct value: the first states the tool's purpose, the second clarifies a parameter and the return type. No filler or redundant phrasing, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain the inheritance rules, enumerate supported heirs, clarify booleans vs counts, or describe error behavior. The spouse parameter is the only one given meaningful context, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only documents the spouse parameter with its allowed values. The other six parameters (sons, daughters, father, mother, currency, estate_value) are left entirely to their schema titles/types, with no additional context or validation rules.

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 opens with 'Calculate basic Faraid (Islamic inheritance) fixed shares', using the specific verb 'calculate' and resource 'Faraid fixed shares'. The qualifier 'basic' adds scope, and the return note distinguishes this from sibling calculation tools like calculate_zakat. It clearly states what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'basic' implies a limited subset of inheritance calculations but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given. It does not reference any alternative inheritance calculation tools.

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