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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: three separate ceilings are applied (insurable earnings for Social Insurance/Redundancy/Industrial Training, total income for GESY, none for Social Cohesion Fund). It does not state the rate year, currency, or that the operation is a pure side-effect-free computation, but the ceiling logic and the income-tax exclusion are substantive disclosures.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and output shape, followed by the ceiling rules that matter most for correct interpretation. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, but the description states what the result breaks down into (employer cost and employee deductions by fund) and which ceilings govern it, which covers the core call correctness. Missing are the rate year/version and currency, which matter for a statutory-rate calculator.

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 50%: holiday_fund is documented in the schema, but gross_annual_salary has no schema description. The description implies an annual gross, total-income basis through the GESY ceiling discussion but never clarifies gross vs net, currency, or the basis of the input. It adds indirect context rather than compensating for the undocumented parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb (break down / calculate) and resource (a Cyprus salary into employer cost and employee deductions by fund), and the fund-level breakdown distinguishes it from the compliance/tests siblings in the list. An agent can tell this is a pure payroll-contribution calculator rather than a lookup or eligibility test.

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 explicit exclusion "Income tax is not included" tells the agent when not to rely on this tool for a full CTC or net-pay figure, which is a useful boundary. It does not name an alternative tool to pair with for income tax, and there is no statement about when to use this versus cyprus_compliance_obligations or the residency/VAT tests.

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