calc_recycling_fee

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add domain behavior — and it does: official coefficient table, base rate of 20 000 RUB, the temporal validity window of Dec 2025 through 2030, and the personal-use preferential rates. It even discloses the return payload (coefficient, band, source). It does not say what happens for a date outside the table window, which is the one behavioral gap.

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?

Three short paragraphs: what it computes, the table it uses, and what it returns — front-loaded and logically ordered. Slightly dense with legislative citations and duplicated rate figures, but every element is informative rather than filler.

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?

For an eight-parameter, read-only calculator with no output schema, the definition supplies scope, legal source, valid date window, and the shape of the result. The only missing pieces are out-of-range date handling and an explicit statement that parameter requirements (e.g. engine_volume_cc for ice) are enforced — the latter being covered by the schema.

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 every parameter including the engine enum, power units, and the ICE/hybrid volume requirement — baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the banding logic (engine type, volume, kW power band, age, year) but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific verb+resource (calculating the recycling fee / утилизационный сбор) and pins the scope to M1 passenger cars imported into Russia, referencing the exact legal basis (Decree 1291 as amended by 1713). That is enough to separate it from siblings such as calc_import_payments or customs_clearance_fee, though it never explicitly states that it covers only the recycling fee and not the other import charges.

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?

Usage context is implied by the scope sentence (you are pricing a recycling fee for an imported passenger car), and the description notes both the commercial and personal-use tables. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance against calc_import_payments, and does not warn that non-M1 vehicles (trucks, buses, motorcycles) are out of scope.

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