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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's added value is the output shape: net before and after withholding tax, on monthly/annual/hourly bases, with a 2026 employee-contribution breakdown. The year reference is meaningful because it tells the agent which rule set is applied, though it does not say whether results are estimates or how the withholding rate is resolved.

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 no filler; the conversion direction comes first, output scope second, supported statuses last. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and a read-only annotation set, the description does the essential work of enumerating what comes back at a high level. The gaps are the omitted 'portage' status and the unexplained optional inputs, which leave some ambiguity for a parameter-heavy simulation.

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 38%, so the description should compensate more than it does: it names four of the five statut enum values (omitting 'portage', which the schema allows) and hints at the withholding-tax parameter via 'prélèvement à la source'. It says nothing about moiPrime, primesAnnuelle, heuresSupMensuelles, or tempsTravailPercent.

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 ('Convertit un salaire brut mensuel en net') plus the full output scope (avant/après impôt, mensuel, annuel, horaire, détail des cotisations 2026). The direction of conversion is unambiguous, which implicitly separates it from the sibling salaire_net_en_brut without needing to name it.

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 makes the use case implied (a gross-to-net salary simulation) but never states when to prefer it over salaire_net_en_brut, comparatif_statuts, or portage_salarial, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer the routing from the name and the direction wording.

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