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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, and the description doesn't contradict that. The description adds the scope of what the calculator accounts for (income tax, social/health insurance, spendable amount) and supported income types, but doesn't disclose details like rounding, assumptions, or output format. This is acceptable given the read-only annotation, but it adds minimal behavioral insight beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences, immediately states the core question, and includes supporting context without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief to fully guide invocation. It doesn't explain return values, key parameter interactions (e.g., how pausal bands affect the calculation), or conditions like advanceExempt. The read-only annotation reduces safety concerns, but the tool still needs more contextual detail for reliable use.

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 only 44%, leaving several parameters (taxRegime, activityType, advanceExempt, employerCoversHealth, secondaryThresholdExceeded) without inline descriptions. The description hints at some parameters (mixed income, flat tax) but doesn't explain their semantics or how they affect the calculation. Thus it doesn't adequately compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: calculating how much of monthly OSVČ income to set aside for Czech income tax, social and health insurance, and what remains safe to spend. It also specifies support for mixed §7/§9 income and flat-tax regimes, which helps distinguish it from sibling calculators like calc_flat_tax_settlement. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 on when to use the tool: for monthly set-aside calculations, including mixed §7/§9 income and flat-tax regimes. This helps an agent understand applicability but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative tools such as calc_flat_tax_settlement. That is a mild gap.

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