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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-world computation. The description usefully adds the tax-regime scope (progressive, linear 19%, lump-sum/ryczałt) and the resolution basis for Spółka z o.o. However, it discloses nothing about the calculation's assumptions (which year's ZUS/PIT rates) or output shape, which the annotations do not cover.

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 the verb first and no filler. It is dense because of the many parenthetical Polish terms, but every clause maps to a real contract type the tool handles. No wasted sentences.

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 10-parameter tax/calculation tool with no output schema, the description identifies what is computed and across which contract types but omits the return structure, the rate-year assumptions, and how inputMode changes the result. With 100% schema coverage the parameter side is covered, so the remaining gap is output/assumption disclosure, leaving it adequate but incomplete.

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 100% (10 params, 0 required), so the schema already documents zus, costs, budget, grossUop, taxation, inputMode, and the under-26 flags. The description only tangentially reinforces parameter meaning (taxation variants, contract types) without adding syntax or modes beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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?

The description names a specific verb (Calculate) and resource (Polish contract and tax net income comparison) and enumerates the contract types it covers (UoP, Umowa Zlecenie, Umowa Dzieło, B2B, Spółka z o.o.). The purpose is recognizably a multi-contract net-income comparison, but the run-on phrasing mixing 'contract and tax net income comparison for a company budget or UoP gross' is slightly dense. Siblings are all fair-price tools, so no differentiation is needed.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. The phrase 'for a company budget or UoP gross' hints at input scenarios but is really parameter framing, not usage guidance. The agent gets no signal about when this comparison is the right tool versus others.

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