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

Annotations already declare a pure, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by explaining the two outputs (minimum indemnity and the cotisations/CSG/impôt breakdown of a negotiated amount), but it is silent on defaults for the ten optional parameters and on how the chosen barème year changes 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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary computation and appending the conditional secondary output. Efficient, though it leaves no room for the parameter guidance the low schema coverage demands.

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 tool with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description is too thin: it does not say what happens when optional inputs are omitted, what the result contains, or how convention/anneeBarèmes affect the calculation.

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 27% across 11 parameters, so the description should have compensated, and it does not. It only echoes indemniteNegociee (already documented) and never clarifies the relationship between ancienneteAnnees/ancienneteMois, which salary fields drive the reference salary, or what convention and tauxCotisations expect.

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: computing the minimum statutory indemnity for a rupture conventionnelle, plus the conditional tax/social-treatment split when a negotiated amount is supplied. It is clearly distinct from a generic severance calculator, though it never names the closest sibling (indemnite_licenciement) to sharpen the boundary.

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 conditional clause 'si un montant négocié est donné' implies the optional branch (leave it out and you only get the minimum indemnity), which is useful implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement of prerequisites (convention collective, barème year), and no routing to alternatives.

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