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

Annotations already declare this a pure read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world calculation. The description adds useful domain context (which allowances and thresholds apply), but no behavioral traits beyond that — no statement of what the response contains or any edge-case handling, which is acceptable given the safety profile is fully covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and packed with the applicable 2026 rules in a tight single dense sentence with no filler. The heavy parenthetical detail is justified but makes the sentence somewhat run-on.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the computed outputs (nettó, SZJA, TB, szocho, employer cost). Combined with annotations that fully cover the safety profile, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though it could be explicit that these are the returned fields.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches the terse schema fields: it maps gyerekek to concrete allowance amounts (20 000 / 40 000 / 66 000 Ft), explains the 715 765 Ft threshold for the under-30-mother allowance, and clarifies the two conditions behind anya_szja_mentes.

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 (kiszámolja) and resource (nettó from bruttó havi bér) and enumerates the exact components computed (SZJA 15%, TB 18,5%, szocho 13%, total employer cost). The purpose is unambiguous, though it never names or contrasts with siblings like afa_szamitas, so differentiation is left to the name alone.

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 implied by the domain — an agent can infer this is the tool for turning a gross monthly salary into net and employer cost. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or reference to alternative tools such as egyeni_vallalkozo_adozas for different tax regimes.

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