Brutto-Netto- und Gehaltsrechner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation: the net calculation follows the current BMF program flow plan (PAP) and uses the official tax algorithm, which tells the agent the results are authoritative and method-driven. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences with the core claim front-loaded. The all-caps German tagline adds some noise but conveys scope efficiently. No wasted sentences given the tool's complexity; it wisely avoids enumerating the 29 parameters.

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 29-parameter tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description frames the domain well: exact public-sector salary calculation, tax components, allowances, and official BMF methodology. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema covers that. The main missing context is sibling differentiation, already penalized under usage_guidelines.

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 and the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds minimal semantic value by naming concepts (selected allowance IDs, state-specific family allowance) that map to schema properties, but it does not enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb ('Berechnet') and resource (gross, net, annual special payment for public sector employees), including selected allowance IDs and state-specific family allowance. It clearly differentiates from calculate_standard_salary via the 'VOLLSTÄNDIGE ÖD-BERECHNUNG' framing, though it doesn't name siblings explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over calculate_standard_salary, get_public_sector_options, or get_salary_and_zulagen_options. The description implies completeness ('VOLLSTÄNDIGE') but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that calculations follow the 'aktuellen Programmablaufplan (PAP) des Bundesfinanzministeriums (BMF)', which tells the agent the calculation is standards-based and precise. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then adds the key mode distinction. It contains no filler, though the all-caps label and multiple parentheticals make it slightly heavier than necessary.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (27 parameters, 4 employment types) and the presence of a rich output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential decision space: what is calculated, which modes are supported, and which algorithm is used. It does not enumerate parameter dependencies, but the schema descriptions already handle those details.

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 schema already documents all 27 parameters thoroughly. The description adds only light conceptual framing, such as 'Kerndaten' and the special role of 'bruttoGehalt' for 'sonstige'. This is helpful but does not significantly exceed what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Berechnet Grundgehalt, Brutto, Netto und Sonderzahlung aus Kerndaten.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope and supported employment types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'calculate_agent_salary', so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives clear usage context by naming the supported modes: 'Tarif & Besoldung' ('beamte', 'tarif', 'aerzte') and free gross amounts ('sonstige' mit 'bruttoGehalt'). It implies when the tool is appropriate but does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative sibling, so there are no exclusions but also no direct comparison.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds the content scope (employers, agreements, salary groups) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements or rate limits. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, and the output schema exists (though not shown). The description fully explains what the tool returns, and annotations cover safety. Nothing is missing for an agent to call it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 provides an overview of all employers (federal and 16 states) and collective agreements with available salary groups. It uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that calculate salaries.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage as a read-only overview tool, but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer. Given the sibling tools are for salary calculation, the usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the behavioral context that this is a 'DISCOVERY' operation and that it returns a comprehensive set of salary levels and allowances, which is useful but not a major extension beyond the annotations. It does not disclose any limitations or prerequisites beyond what the schema states.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It begins with the 'DISCOVERY' label, immediately conveys the purpose, and lists the output components efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 5 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the returned data (all levels with base salary, allowances, family allowance rules) and the input conditions (employer or collective agreement plus group). It does not explain error handling or edge cases, but these are likely covered by the schema and output schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 parameters are already explained (gruppe, dienstherr, tarifvertrag, employmentType, period_key). The description reinforces the either/or relationship between dienstherr and tarifvertrag with 'oder', but adds no new syntactic or format details. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 function: it delivers all pay grades with base salary and selectable allowances (position, office, family) for a given employer or collective agreement and a group. The 'DISCOVERY' prefix signals a discovery-oriented purpose, distinguishing it from calculation tools. The verb 'Liefert' and the explicit resource (salary options) make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for exploring available salary components and options, as indicated by 'DISCOVERY' and the listing of allowances. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the nature of the output (options rather than computed values) and the required parameters (employmentType, gruppe) clearly orient the agent toward discovery scenarios. A brief mention of alternatives would push this to 5.

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