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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 2026 tax-year scope, which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but the 'returns monthly/annual net, social contributions, employer cost' list largely duplicates what the output schema already exposes.

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 compact sentences with the core conversion stated first, followed by the output summary and the routing pointer. Every clause is informative, though the routing sentence is the weakest link.

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 an output schema present there is no need to enumerate return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope, year, and domain, leaving only cross-tool usage guidance as the main gap for a low-complexity two-parameter tool.

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%, so the schema fully documents gross_monthly and the status enum, making 3 the baseline. The description re-lists the status values (cadre, non-cadre, civil servant) in French terms, adding minor domain color but no syntax, units, or defaults beyond the schema.

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: 'Convert French gross salary to net salary for 2026', including the three employment statuses and the output scope. It is clearly distinguishable from other country salary calculators (belgian, swiss) by the 'French' qualifier, though it does not name any of the many rival French finance tools explicitly.

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 closing line 'See list_bundles for related finance-france calculators' is a soft routing hint but gives no when-to-use/when-not criteria against siblings like calculate_employer_cost_fr or calculate_french_income_tax. Usage is only implied by the year and status framing.

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