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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses substantive behavior: the returned amount may be monthly, hourly, or yearly depending on the CAO and is never recalculated, and the response includes effective date, working hours, and a data-quality indicator. That is real context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 with the primary outcome first and the conditional unit caveat immediately after. The nested parentheses make it dense, but no clause is redundant.

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 the returned fields (amount, ingangsdatum, werkweekuren, datakwaliteit) and explains the unit variability. For a three-parameter read-only lookup this is close to complete, missing only guidance on the sibling tools.

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 schema already documents name, scale, and step including the default-step behavior. The description adds only that scale and step jointly select the salary and that amounts are never converted, which is useful but does not enrich individual parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Geeft') and a precise resource ('bruto maandsalaris ... voor een schaal en trede binnen een Nederlandse cao'), plus the return fields. It is clearly distinguishable from cao_details and cao_zoeken, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup for a salary at a given scale/step. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. cao_details or cao_zoeken, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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