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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a return-field list, but since an output schema exists this is largely redundant structured data rather than new behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. The return-field enumeration is slightly redundant given the output schema but is brief and harmless.

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 the description need not explain return values, and all parameters are schema-documented, so coverage is adequate. The only real gap is the absence of sibling-routing guidance, which the list_bundles pointer partially offsets.

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 description coverage is 100%: both parameters and the country enum with per-country ages (FR=64, US=67, UK=66) are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Estimate') and resource ('retirement date') and names the two inputs that determine it (birth date, country legal retirement age), which distinguishes it from pension/savings siblings like calculate_retirement_pension. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 pointer to list_bundles for 'temps-rh' calculators, which is a discovery hint rather than a when-to-use/when-not rule. It never states when this tool is preferred over calculate_retirement_pension or calculate_retirement_savings_gap, which are the most confusable siblings.

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