calculate_court_fee

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful 'ad valorem' framing (fee scales with suit value) and a 'not legal advice' disclaimer, but omits anything about supported states, rounding/rate tables, or computation caveats.

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 Args/Returns/Notes block structure is easy to scan and front-loads purpose and usage before the parameter enumeration. The Returns line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but the whole thing is short and nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return structure, and it still sketches the response envelope. For a stateless, read-only calculation with fully documented inputs, the definition is complete enough to invoke correctly; only rate-table/coverage caveats are missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the description merely restates them. It notably does not surface the suit_type default of 'money' that the schema carries, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Calculate') plus resource ('ad valorem court fees') and a scope qualifier ('for a specific state'), so an agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from directionally-related siblings such as calculate_stamp_duty, so it stops short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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?

It states a clear use context: estimating the court fee payable for filing a suit. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, but the scenario is unambiguous enough that the agent can route here confidently.

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