rera_rent_increase

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lowered. The description earns credit beyond that by disclosing the underlying mechanism: it maps the gap versus the RERA Rent Index to the allowed 'increase slab' and reports gap %, max increase %, and max new rent, making the derivation transparent.

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 short, front-loaded sentences that lead with the regulation and then the mechanism; no filler. It lightly describes return values that the output schema already covers, a minor redundancy, but the text is tight overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose and methodology adequately; the only shortfall is the absence of invocation context relative to the many rental-domain siblings.

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%, with both required AED parameters documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning (units, rounding, edge cases) beyond what the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compute the maximum legal rent increase') tied to a named regulation (Dubai Decree 43 of 2013), so the agent knows exactly what computation runs. It does not explicitly name or contrast the nearest sibling (rent_estimate/rental_dispute_guide), so it stops short of the top band.

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 use case is inferable from the domain ('maximum legal rent increase' when a tenancy renewal is in question), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no routing to alternatives such as rent_estimate or rental_dispute_guide. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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