calculate_transfer_cost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool calculates costs, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it modifies data, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 one sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description does not explain the return format or any edge cases (e.g., handling of missing zonal_value, zero price). Given the tool calculates multiple fees, the lack of output details is a significant gap. The description should be more complete to compensate for the missing output schema and annotations.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by listing the cost components but does not provide additional detail beyond what the schema descriptions offer. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 calculates full Philippine land title transfer costs, listing specific cost components (CGT, DST, transfer tax, registration fee, notarial fee) for a given property price. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that provide legal info or listings.

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 the tool is used when wanting to compute transfer costs for a property, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools are different enough that the purpose is clear, but explicit guidance is missing.

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