Simulation APL

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result is an estimate, without explaining assumptions, precision, or any limitations of the calculation.

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 efficient sentence with the main action and factors front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 a simulation tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format, calculation assumptions, or enough optional-parameter semantics to fully guide correct 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?

The description groups the core inputs into rent, income, household composition, and zone, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. Yet schema description coverage is only 30%, and the description does not clarify the boolean flags, the zone enum values, or the relationship between monthly income and annual resources.

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, "Estime," and a specific resource, "aide personnalisée au logement (APL)," plus the main factors considered. This makes the tool clearly distinguishable from the payroll and tax calculators listed as siblings.

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 tool's purpose implies when it should be used: to estimate APL from rent, income, household composition, and zone. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it, exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with any alternative tool.

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