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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the formula, the default no-decote behavior, the 1.25%/quarter decote cap, and the authoritative sources (golden-tested formulas). Slight lack of explicit output-shape detail, but the formula and 'pension brute' imply the result type.

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 description is dense and front-loaded, opening with the core formula and coverage, then routing rulesainer. Every sentence carries essential information (scope, exclusions, sources), though the parenthetical lists make it somewhat long. It remains purposeful rather than padded.

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, the description is complete: it names the covered regimes, gives the formula, explains routing to siblings, identifies the source files, and all parameters are documented in the schema. Missing details like exact return formatting are inferred easily from the highly specific formula and 'pension brute' framing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds relational meaning by mapping the formula terms (salaire de référence, trimestres liquidables ÷ requis, décote) directly to parameters)Skip. It also clarifies that salaire_reference is the reference salary/treatment, complementing but not merely repeating the schema descriptions.

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 precise verb+resource: computes the gross pension for a single annuity-based regime, with the exact formula and the list of covered schemes (fonction publique, régimes spéciaux, IEG). It explicitly distinguishes itself from point-based regimes and the CNAV general scheme, making sibling differentiation immediate.

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 says 'À utiliser UNIQUEMENT pour ces régimes en ANNUITÉS' and then names alternatives with exact routing: points-based regimes go to retraite_pension_regime, CNAV to retraite_estimation, and multi-regime totals to retraite_pension_totale via pensions_fournies. This is explicit when/when-not guidance with named sibling tools.

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