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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does substantial work: it discloses the increment rate, quarterly cap, total cap, computation window, eligibility gates, and handling of the LFSS 2026 freeze. It does not state the return value shape or behavior when conditions are unmet, which is a residual gap.

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: formula, cap, window, and conditions come before legal references. It is a single paragraph with no filler, though the trailing sources add length without directly helping an agent decide how to call the tool.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is not complete: it omits what the tool returns, default/estimation behavior when quarter values are not supplied, and how optional inputs like rfr or parts affect the result. The agent can infer the calculation but not the full call contract.

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 55%, and the description adds meaning for core inputs such as the quarter window, MDA condition, and required duration. However, several shared optional parameters like age, rfr, parts, and trimestres_acquis are not connected to the calculation, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 clearly states the tool computes the parental pension bonus ('Majoration de pension pour les parents') and gives the exact rate, cap, and eligibility criteria. It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as retraite_optimisation or retraite_estimation, so it misses the strongest possible sibling differentiation.

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 gives explicit eligibility conditions: legal age ≥ 63, required duration reached, and at least one MDA quarter, plus the applicable window [âge légal − 1 an ; âge légal). It does not mention when not to use this tool or point to an alternative, stopping just short of a full 5.

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