Get Projection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true. The description adds significant behavioral context by detailing the per-year output components (revenues, expenses, depreciation, capping, carryforward, net result, micro-BIC comparison), which is valuable beyond the annotation's simple read-only hint.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the core function and then enumerate the output. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the list is organized logically.

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 thoroughly explains the output structure, which is important given there is no output schema. However, it lacks any information about input parameters, which is a notable gap for a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions. The description covers the 'what' well but not the 'how' of 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning but does not. It makes no mention of years, start_year, income_growth, or expense_growth. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds zero value to understanding their semantics or defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calcule') and clearly identifies the resource ('projection pluriannuelle du résultat fiscal LMNP') and scope ('sur plusieurs années'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like compute_fiscal_year and compute_depreciation by emphasizing the multi-year and comprehensive nature.

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 clearly implies a multi-year scenario and includes a micro-BIC comparison, providing context for when it might be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus single-year alternatives (e.g., compute_fiscal_year) or provide any exclusions.

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