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

Annotations already declare a read-only, idempotent, closed-world computation, which is the main behavioral profile needed here. The description adds one useful semantic detail — the input net is before income tax — and notes the output mirrors the sibling's breakdown, but does not say what that breakdown actually contains or how it scales with the optional parameters.

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 that leads with the computed quantity and its input. Tight overall; the only soft spot is the trailing cross-reference to salaire_brut_en_net, which conveys format expectations rather than routing information.

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 six-parameter financial calculator with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. Optional inputs like part-time percentage, bonus month and monthly health insurance materially change the result, yet nothing explains their effect or units.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only clarifies netMensuel (net, before tax) and leaves statut, moisPrime, mutuelleMensuelle, tempsTravailPercent and tauxPrelevementSource entirely unexplained beyond their names.

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: recover the monthly gross salary matching a given net monthly figure. It also distinguishes direction from the sibling salaire_brut_en_net by framing this as the inverse computation. The reference to 'the same detail as salaire_brut_en_net' is slightly circular, but the core operation is unambiguous.

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?

Direction of use is implied by 'corresponding to a net monthly before tax', so an agent can infer this is the tool to pick when it holds a net figure. However, it never explicitly says when NOT to use it, nor does it frame salaire_brut_en_net as the alternative for the opposite direction, only as a formatting reference.

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