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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral traits. It states 'calculate' and lists the return values, but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, or requirements like authentication. The behavior is implied to be a read-only calculation, but explicit confirmation is missing.

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 clear, concise sentences with no unnecessary information. The purpose and output are front-loaded, and the pointer to list_bundles is brief but useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers what it returns (employee, employer contributions) and references related tools. However, it could provide more context on what CSS/IPRES abbreviations stand for to aid new users, but it is largely sufficient for the intended audience.

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% and already describes both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it mentions gross_monthly_xof and the output fields but does not explain parameter semantics or edge cases. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool calculates Senegalese social contributions (CSS/IPRES) for both employee and employer, and specifies the output structure. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_belgian_social_contributions or calculate_moroccan_cnss by naming the country and specific contribution types.

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 implies use for Senegalese social contributions and refers to list_bundles for related calculators, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools for other countries or contexts.

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