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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does so by disclosing the key non-obvious behavior: levers are not summed naively, each amount has an associated confidence and legal source, and the output is separately quantified and ranked. It does not discuss side effects, but as an optimization computation the 'renvoie' framing makes read-only intent clear.

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?

The core purpose and output are front-loaded; the non-summation caveat appears early; legal sources are packed at the end. It is dense and somewhat repetitive ('menu classé' appears twice), but for a 17-parameter tool the length is justified.

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 complex tool with no output schema, it explains what is returned (menu, levers, gain/ROI/confidence/sources), what is not returned (no summed total), and what legal basis supports the amounts. It could be more explicit about how optional parameters activate or disable levers and about the exact return structure, but overall it gives enough context.

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 76%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds domain-level grouping (âge, trimestres, SAM, statut, enfants…) and maps levers to parameter areas, but it does not compensate for the few undocumented parameters or add parameter-specific syntax beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific deliverable: a ranked menu of retirement optimization levers, each with gain/ROI/confidence/source. It names the levers and the input situation, and its 'menu classé' framing clearly separates it from single-lever siblings like retraite_rachat or retraite_progressive.

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?

It gives clear context: use when you have a career-end situation and want a ranked set of optimization levers, not a single simulation. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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