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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (retirement_age, retirement_date, years_remaining, already_retired, note) which is helpful, but does not mention any side effects, idempotency, or data handling. For a simple calculation tool, this is adequate but not outstanding.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence encapsulates the purpose, and the second adds useful context about related tools and return structure. No wasted words, easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, straightforward calculation) and the presence of a described output structure, the description is quite complete. It could mention that the calculation is purely based on legal ages and no personal data is stored, but as-is it covers the essential.

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 already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (birth_date format, country enum with implied ages). The description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 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 the verb 'estimate' and the resource 'retirement date', and specifies inputs (birth date and country legal retirement age). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being specific to retirement date estimation, not a general age calculator.

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 mentions related 'temps-rh' calculators via list_bundles, providing a hint for alternatives, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others or when not to use it. More explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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