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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool computes contributions and returns specific fields, but doesn't mention data freshness, any destructive behavior, or permissions. For a calculator, this is adequate but not detailed.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and key details. It provides the return structure and points to related tools without extra fluff.

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 a single-parameter calculator with full schema coverage and output described, the description is largely complete. It could mention contribution rate updates or the fact that the calculation is based on current CNSS rules, but overall it is enough for an agent to use the tool 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 input schema has one parameter with a description (gross monthly salary in MAD). The description adds the return structure but does not enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it calculates Moroccan CNSS contributions for both employee and employer shares. It also specifies the return structure, distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like calculate_moroccan_income_tax.

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 implies usage for calculating CNSS contributions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other tax or social contribution calculators. The mention to see list_bundles for related calculators is a hint but lacks clear when-not or alternative guidance.

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