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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read/compute operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing what the calculation returns: a line-by-line breakdown of employee withholdings and employer contributions under 2026 rules. It does not cover numeric limitations, rounding, or the upper salary cap, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the trilingual output concept and then the calculation scope. The opening keyword string is dense but serves search matching; otherwise there is little waste. Slightly heavy for the amount of routing information conveyed.

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 carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so by naming the line items returned for both employee and employer sides. That is enough for an agent to know what to expect, though totals, rounding behavior, and currency formatting of the response remain unspecified.

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 all five parameters (lang, employee_type, born_before_1975, gross_salary_kzt, apply_base_deduction) are already documented in the schema with defaults, enums, and legal citations. The description adds domain framing around the withholdings but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Converts a monthly gross salary into the net amount paid to the employee in Kazakhstan'), names the jurisdiction and 2026 ruleset, and enumerates the exact components produced (OPV, VOSMS, IPN, OPVR, SO, OOSMS, social tax). The direction of conversion is unambiguous, which cleanly separates it from the inverse sibling kz_salary_net_to_gross.

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 implied by the conversion direction and the trilingual keywords, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the inverse tool kz_salary_net_to_gross as the alternative for the opposite calculation. An agent can infer the fit, but routing is left to inference.

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