calculate_property_capital_gains_fr

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes inputs and outputs but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. Lacks behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication needs, or performance considerations.

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?

Very short description (one sentence + return field list) with no fluff. However, the return field list repeats what might be in the output schema, which is slightly redundant but still 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 the existence of an output schema, the return field list is not strictly necessary but helps. The description does not explain abatement rules, tax rates, or edge cases (e.g., non-resident scenarios). Adequate for a straightforward calculation but could be more complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema; the reference to 'holding-period abatements' relates to holding_years but is implicit. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it calculates French property capital gains tax after holding-period abatements, and lists return fields. Distinguishes from similar tools via the 'French' and 'property' specificity and reference to related calculators. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 'calculate_capital_gains_property' or other capital gains tools.

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?

Provides a link to list_bundles for related 'finance-france' calculators, implying context but not explicitly stating when to use this tool versus alternatives. No clear when-not or exclusion criteria.

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