calculate_lmnp_amortization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a pure calculation with no side effects, which is appropriate for such a tool. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits like idempotency, data persistence, or rate limits. The behavior is straightforward, so the minimal description is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the primary function and then point to a bundle for related tools. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (niche French tax calculation), the description is minimal but covers the essentials. It explains what it calculates but does not define LMNP or elaborate on the output format, though an output schema exists. For a calculation tool with well-defined parameters and output schema, this level of completeness is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description itself does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it calculates LMNP rental property amortization and annual tax deduction for the French tax regime. It uses a specific verb ('calculate') and resource ('LMNP amortization and tax deduction'). While it references a bundle for related tools, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like calculate_lmnp_deficit, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It only suggests seeing list_bundles for related 'immobilier' calculators, which is a weak reference. There is no direct comparison to alternatives or clarification of prerequisites, making it insufficient for guiding an agent in selecting this tool over similar ones.

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