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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about the nature of the result (an estimate under French social-charges rules), the assumed defaults, or which inputs are mutually exclusive — a 3 reflects annotations doing most of the work.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the status list is compact. It is efficient but under-specified rather than over-long.

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 an 11-parameter simulation with no output schema and heavy tax/legal assumptions (charges déductibilité, dividendes, prélèvement à la source), the description does not say what is returned or how to combine required and optional inputs. An agent would have to open the schema and guess at the TJM vs CA exclusivity.

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 only 64% across 11 parameters, and the description contributes zero parameter meaning. Critically, it does not explain that tjm and caMensuel are alternative inputs or what joursParMois defaults to — ambiguities the schema does not resolve either.

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 daily rate (TJM) or monthly revenue into net freelance income, and enumerates the five legal statuses covered. Clear enough to separate it from single-status siblings like auto_entrepreneur or portage_salarial, though it never names those 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 pick this multi-status converter versus comparatif_statuts, auto_entrepreneur, portage_salarial or seuils_micro_entreprise, all of which overlap. The status enumeration hints at the overlap but gives no selection rule or prerequisites.

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