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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'returns monthly pension estimate' but lacks details on limits, accuracy, or side effects. Discloses basic behavior but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is concise (5 sentences) and front-loads purpose. However, the final sentence about 'list_bundles' is tangential. Overall, it's efficient but slightly off-topic.

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?

Given parameter count (3), schema coverage (100%), and output schema present, description should be comprehensive. However, the parameter mismatch is a critical gap. Also, output is vague ('monthly pension estimate') without details on calculation or return format.

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 100%, baseline 3, but description adds misleading info: says 'status (employee/self-employed)' while schema has 'household_type' with 'single'/'household'. This reduces value. Otherwise, explains inputs generally.

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?

Clearly states verb 'estimate', resource 'Belgian retirement pension', and inputs 'career years and average salary'. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying Belgian context and referencing 'finance-belgique' calculators.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for retirement planning in Belgium', but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives. Mention of 'list_bundles' is vague. There is a mismatch: description mentions 'status (employee/self-employed)' while schema uses 'household_type' with 'single'/'household'.

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