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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behaviour, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the output field list and hints at a pension ceiling being applied, but it does not explain rate structure, assumptions, or caps in a way that goes much beyond the structured fields.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding; the return-field list and bundle pointer are compact. Slight redundancy in restating return fields that the output schema already defines.

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, side-effect-free calculator with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient to call it correctly. The only real omission is any indication of the calculation basis (rates, ceilings, assumptions), which is minor given the output schema covers returns.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Gross monthly salary in MAD'), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no additional meaning about the parameter (units, allowed range, currency handling), matching the baseline for fully-documented schemas.

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+resource ('Calculate Moroccan CNSS contributions') and further scopes it with 'employee and employer shares', which separates it from generic payroll or income-tax siblings such as calculate_moroccan_income_tax and calculate_belgian_social_contributions. It does not, however, name or contrast any specific sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only guidance is a discovery pointer ('See list_bundles for related finance-afrique-quebec calculators'), which helps navigation but does not say when to choose this tool over near-neighbours like calculate_moroccan_income_tax. Usage is implied by the tool's name rather than stated.

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