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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is deterministic Swiss payroll, no AI, and returns annual + monthly net plus deduction breakdown and data year. It doesn't mention rate limits, but for an offline calculation those are less relevant.

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 front-loaded with the purpose in French and English, then details deductions. It is concise and every sentence adds information. The bilingual opening is slightly redundant but appropriate for a Swiss tool.

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 tool's complexity, the description covers what it computes, the deduction categories, the return format (annual + monthly net, breakdown, data year), and the deterministic nature. With no output schema, this level of return-value detail is exactly what is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that age affects the LPP rate and that canton is the border canton of work, which reinforces the schema's own descriptions. No new syntax or format details are provided beyond the schema, but the added context on age/LPP linkage is marginally useful.

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?

Specific verb+resource: converts gross annual Swiss salary (CHF) to net for a cross-border worker, and names the exact deductions (AVS/AI/APG, AC, LPP, NBU). This is clearly distinguished from siblings like calculate_teletravail_frontalier and compare_lamal_cmu, which handle different payroll/insurance concerns.

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 implies usage (convert gross annual Swiss salary to net for a frontalier in a supported border canton), but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, such as for non-border workers or cantons outside the enum. The scope is clear enough for most routing decisions.

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