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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that output includes an effective date, weekly hours and a data-quality indicator, which is useful since no output schema exists. However, it says nothing about authorization needs, lookups that fail, or how ambiguous cao names are resolved.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the returned value and then enumerates the supporting fields. No filler, though it is terse enough that it forgoes any routing or usage guidance.

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 usefully enumerates what the call returns (salary, effective date, weekly hours, data quality), which compensates for the missing return documentation. The lack of when-to-use guidance against three plausible siblings is the main remaining gap.

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 name, scale and step are already documented in the schema, including the default-step behavior. The description only restates that scale and step are inputs, adding no format or matching details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Geeft het bruto maandsalaris voor een schaal en trede binnen een Nederlandse cao'. It also names what comes back (ingangsdatum, werkweekuren, datakwaliteit). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like cao_details or cao_zoeken, so it stays at 4 rather than 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus cao_details, cao_zoeken, cbs_loontrends, or financiele_parameters, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the purpose alone.

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