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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing determinism, no data storage, the 46-worked-week projection, the distinct legal instruments with effective dates, and the returned values. This is unusually transparent about what the tool computes and what it does not persist.

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?

Core thresholds are front-loaded and the description is information-dense. However, the French sentence duplicates the opening English sentence, and the web-counter/list_deadlines sentence adds product context that is not strictly necessary. It is efficient overall but not free of redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the main return concepts: telework share, position against both limits, remaining telework days, counted mission days, and the optional LAMal/CMU window. Combined with legal dates, determinism, and the 46-week projection, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the mission-day cap and the LAMal/CMU option window, and adds a small extra note that as_of_date makes the answer reproducible, but most parameter meaning already lives in the schema.

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 names the exact resource and operation: computing FR–CH frontalier telework thresholds against the 40% tax and 49.9% social-security limits. It also states the specific outputs (share, position, remaining days, mission-day count, option window), which clearly separates it from siblings like calculate_net_swiss_salary or compare_lamal_cmu.

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 frames this as a deterministic projection for a typical working week and distinguishes it from the signed-in monthly log and list_deadlines, which handle the real tracked position and threshold warnings. It does not explicitly enumerate sibling alternatives or provide crisp when-not-to-use cases, but the projection-vs-real-position contrast gives sufficient guidance.

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