calculate_dubai_fees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose conditional logic (Golden Visa eligibility at >= 2,000,000 AED) and the composition of the fee calculation, but it never states that this is a pure read-only computation with no side effects, nor how conditions like hasMortgage change which fees appear.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists components. Every clause maps to a real output of the tool; the only minor cost is the long enumeration, which is dense but not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description must convey what is returned, and the fee enumeration plus the Golden Visa flag effectively does that. It falls short of describing the return structure (a breakdown object, currency, totals) but covers the substantive content an agent needs to select the tool.

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 the four parameters are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds limited incremental meaning: it implies mortgage registration fees depend on the mortgage parameters, but adds no format, unit, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives a specific verb (calculates) and enumerates the exact fee components produced: DLD 4% transfer fee, admin fees, agency commission, trustee fees, mortgage registration fees, plus a Golden Visa eligibility check. This is far more specific than its siblings (calculate_rental_yield, calculate_mortgage_eligibility), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 is clearly implied the tool applies to upfront purchase-fee scenarios, and the Golden Visa threshold hints at a secondary use case, but there is no statement of when to use this versus calculate_mortgage_eligibility or calculate_rental_yield. Usage must be inferred from the fee list rather than stated.

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