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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope ('gross + social charges') and the return shape, but discloses no assumptions such as which default status/rate table is applied when status is omitted, which matters for a cost estimate.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage then inputs then cross-reference; little waste. Slightly list-like, but each clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the single required parameter is documented at 100% coverage. However, the phantom 'status' input leaves the description inconsistent with the actual contract, which is a real completeness gap for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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?

The description advertises an input 'status (cadre/non-cadre)' that does not exist in the schema, which declares only gross_monthly with additionalProperties=false. This mismatch could lead an agent to send an invalid 'status' argument and get a validation error, actively misleading rather than clarifying.

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 and resource with scope: 'Compute total employer cost in France (gross + social charges).' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calculate_french_salary (net salary) and calculate_portage_salarial, which cover adjacent but different French payroll concepts.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('hiring budget or freelance vs salary comparison') and routes to list_bundles for related 'finance-france' calculators. It does not, however, state when to prefer it over calculate_french_salary or similar siblings, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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