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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so this is a safe simulation call. The description adds that the estimate is derived from the average gross monthly salary and that it returns both amounts and duration, which is useful. It does not disclose the regime assumptions (e.g. the 1 September 2026 rupture conventionnelle rules, or the 24/36-month reference period) that materially change results.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the outputs in one clause. No filler or restatement of 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?

For a five-parameter simulation with no output schema, the description conveys the returned quantities but not their form (units, whether net of contributions, whether duration is given in days or months) and glosses over the conditional age and contract-break logic. Adequate to call, thin on interpretation.

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 80% and descriptions there already define salaireBrutMensuelMoyen, moisTravailles, ageMoins55 and ruptureConventionnelle, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, and trancheAge (an enum) is undocumented and its relationship to ageMoins55 unexplained, leaving the ambiguity unaddressed.

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?

Specific verb (estime) plus resource (allocation chômage ARE) plus the three outputs produced (montant journalier, mensuel, durée d'indemnisation) and the input basis (salaire brut mensuel moyen). It is clearly distinct from indemnite_licenciement or rupture_conventionnelle, though it never names the closest sibling to differentiate further.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as solde_tout_compte, which also touches unemployment context, nor any prerequisite (e.g. reference period, age branch selection). The 'Compatibilité' hint is ambiguous about how ageMoins55 and trancheAge interact. The agent must infer the routing entirely.

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