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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds genuinely useful domain context (legal vs. Syntec/Métallurgie conventional formulas, driven by reference salary and seniority). It does not disclose the behavioral effects of `fauteGrave` (which strips the indemnity) or `ruptureConventionnelle`, nor what the result contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its scope come first. It is efficient but leaves no room for the routing or parameter guidance the tool needs.

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 legal-calculation tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what the result is and how the salary inputs interact, and clarify the effect of `fauteGrave` and `ruptureConventionnelle`. As written, an agent cannot confidently populate the optional parameters or interpret the answer.

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 36% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It names the two conceptual inputs (salaire de référence, ancienneté) but leaves `fauteGrave`, `convention`, `tauxCotisations`, `ancienneteMois`, and the net/brut salary fields unexplained, and does not say which salary field takes precedence.

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+resource ('Calcule l'indemnité légale de licenciement') and even scopes the variants covered (légale, Syntec, Métallurgie). An agent can tell it apart from generic payroll siblings, though it never names or contrasts the nearby `rupture_conventionnelle` tool.

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 only implied by the phrase 'indemnité légale de licenciement' – the agent must infer this is the tool for computing severance on dismissal. There is no explicit when/when-not, no mention of the `rupture_conventionnelle` sibling, and no note that only `ancienneteAnnees` is required while the other ten parameters are optional enrichments.

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