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

The annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world calculation, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds domain context by identifying the French Assurance Vieillesse scheme and naming return fields, but it does not disclose calculation assumptions, limitations, or interpretation caveats.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return keys and a related-bundle pointer. It uses two tight sentences with no filler and every element serves a routing or interpretation 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?

Given full schema coverage, rich annotations, an output schema, and a simple three-parameter calculation, the description is largely complete for correct invocation. Its main gap is routing clarity among the numerous pension and retirement siblings, which is partially mitigated by the specific French basic pension wording.

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%, and all three parameters are documented in the input schema, including units for average_salary_best25 and target quarters for target_years. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: estimating the French basic retirement pension (retraite de base Assurance Vieillesse). It distinguishes itself from non-French pension siblings through the explicit French scheme reference, and it lists the return fields, which further clarifies what the calculation produces.

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?

Usage is implied by the specific French basic pension scope, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus siblings such as calculate_belgian_pension, calculate_retirement_savings_gap, or calculate_retirement_date. The pointer to list_bundles is ancillary rather than direct routing guidance.

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