Get Projection

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the calculated information per year (revenus, charges, amortissements, plafonnement, report, résultat net, comparaison micro-BIC). It does not disclose all side effects or authentication needs, but for a read-only computation, this is sufficient.

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 a single concise sentence that packs a lot of information about the output structure. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Slightly dense but effective.

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 tool has 4 parameters (all undocumented in schema) and no output schema. The description explains the output well but omits parameter explanations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 0%. The description does not explain any of the four parameters (years, start_year, income_growth, expense_growth). For a projection tool, understanding these parameters is crucial, and the description fails to provide any semantics.

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 a multi-year projection of the LMNP tax result, specifying the included components (revenus, charges, amortissements, etc.) and that amounts are in euros. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_simulation.

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 for projections but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_simulation). No guidance on prerequisites, when not to use, or sibling comparison is provided.

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