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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds the legal context (French termination types) and a note field in the return, but since an output schema exists, the return-field listing largely duplicates structured data.

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 tight, front-loaded sentences that lead with the core purpose. The inline return-field enumeration is mildly redundant given the output schema, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 a full output schema, complete annotations, and 100%-covered parameters, the description only needs to establish purpose and scope, which it does, plus a discovery pointer to list_bundles. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 monthly_salary and years_seniority are documented with units and meaning), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (calculate), resource (French severance pay), and scope (rupture conventionnelle or licenciement), which cleanly separates it from the many other French finance siblings like calculate_french_salary or calculate_overtime_fr. An agent can identify the tool's domain without opening the schema.

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 two named termination contexts (rupture conventionnelle, licenciement) imply when the tool applies, and it points to list_bundles for related 'finance-france' calculators. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against the many sibling calculators that also touch French payroll (e.g. calculate_french_salary), leaving routing partly to inference.

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