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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the exact contribution rates (8.8% social insurance, 2.65% GHS), the inclusion of provident fund contributions, and the fact that these are deducted before tax, which accurately conveys the calculation order. The default-fallback statement also signals that the tool is robust to missing inputs, though it stops short of describing the output structure.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the action and resource in the first five words. The only inefficiency is the doubled 'calculator' phrase ('gross to net calculator, 2026 calculator'), which is a minor wording flaw in an otherwise tight description.

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?

For a tool with three documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs, rates, and fallback behavior. The tool's title and name indicate the result is a gross-to-net computation, so an agent can infer the output. It could be more explicit about the exact return payload, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 value by mapping the calculation behavior to the parameters: it identifies the social insurance and GHS rates that apply to gross salary and references the provident fund parameter, plus the pre-tax deduction order. It does not explain the 'salaries' parameter, but the schema already does.

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 action ('Run'), a specific resource ('Cyprus gross to net calculator, 2026'), and the core calculation logic, including the rates. This clearly differentiates it from the describe/enquiry sibling tools, which are about inspection rather than execution.

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 provides clear context—this is the tool that runs the calculator—and directly tells the agent that omitted inputs will fall back to defaults, implying optional parameters can be skipped. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion criteria, but no other sibling performs the same calculation, so the use case is unambiguous.

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