calculate_notary_fees_detailed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns total fees and a per-component breakdown but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it makes external API calls, has rate limits, or is deterministic. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely uses external data (DMTO rates by department).

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and output breakdown, and the second sentence lists inputs, outputs, and references a related tool. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It mentions the breakdown components and that it returns total fees and per-component breakdown. The description is largely complete for a calculator tool, though it could explicitly mention that it covers French notary fees only, which it does indirectly.

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 schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds value by summarizing the inputs and noting that department is optional and affects the DMTO rate, which goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions. This provides practical guidance on parameter usage.

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 provides a detailed breakdown of French notary fees by component (taxes, emoluments, debours) and specifies it is for property buyers in France. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_notary_fees (likely a simpler version).

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 explicitly says 'Use for property buyers in France' and points to list_bundles for related 'finance-france' calculators, giving context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_notary_fees, leaving some ambiguity.

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