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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the return shape {percentage, prorata_salary}, but that duplicates the output schema rather than revealing new behavioral traits such as rounding, currency, or unit assumptions.

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 core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing list_bundles pointer is somewhat tangential to invoking this tool, but it is brief and does not bury the main purpose.

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 simple, read-only, idempotent calculator with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the definition provides enough to invoke it correctly. The main omission is the routing rationale against the very similar portage/salary calculators in such a large sibling set.

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 parameter meaning is already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description only echoes the optionality of full_salary ('optional pro-rata salary') without adding any syntax, units, or defaulting context beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb and resource: calculate part-time work percentage and an optional pro-rata salary. It is clearly distinguishable from unrelated siblings, but differentiation from the closest sibling (calculate_portage_salarial) is only indirect via a pointer to a 'temps-rh' bundle rather than naming the alternative.

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 'See list_bundles for related temps-rh calculators,' which points at a discovery tool rather than stating when this calculator applies versus the other salary/portage calculators. No conditions for when to include full_salary, and no exclusions are given.

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