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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the output field list, but no behavioral context such as which category applies by default in practice, rounding behavior, or jurisdiction assumptions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the sibling pointer is placed last. The 'Returns:' enumeration is somewhat redundant given a full output schema exists, but it does not bloat the definition.

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 annotations, 100% schema coverage and an output schema all present, the description only needs to establish the domain and scope, which it does. A note on category selection defaults or jurisdiction limits would make it fully self-contained.

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% with an enum on 'category' and a minimum on 'revenue', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond what the schema declares; 3 is the correct baseline.

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 ('Calculate') plus a precisely scoped resource ('French auto-entrepreneur (micro-enterprise) net income and social charges'), which separates it from the many other French tax siblings like calculate_french_income_tax or calculate_employer_cost_fr.

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-specific naming, and it does point to 'list_bundles' for related 'finance-france' calculators. However, it never states when to prefer this over calculate_french_income_tax or calculate_french_salary, so the routing guidance is only partial.

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