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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape {eligible, note}, which is useful but partially duplicates the output schema, and it does not explain what 'eligible' means or why a 'contributions' calculation returns only an eligibility flag.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and zero filler. The inline return shape {eligible, note} is slightly redundant given a full output schema exists, keeping it just below 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?

For a 2-parameter calculator with a full output schema, the essentials are covered. However, nothing explains how the age brackets drive the LPP result or what the tool actually computes versus validates, leaving a domain-knowledge gap for an agent unfamiliar with Swiss 2nd-pillar rules.

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%, with both parameters documented (age range 17-70, annual gross in CHF), so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds only the phrase 'by age bracket', which does not clarify the bracket thresholds or salary treatment beyond what the schema says; baseline 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 and resource ('Calculate Swiss occupational pension (LPP / 2e pilier) contributions by age bracket'), which is far more precise than a generic 'calculate'. The 'LPP / 2e pilier' naming implicitly separates it from calculate_swiss_pillar3a and calculate_swiss_salary, but no explicit routing to or away from those siblings is given.

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 usage cue is 'See list_bundles for related finance-suisse calculators,' which is a pointer rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing states when LPP applies (e.g., employed vs self-employed) or why an agent would pick this over calculate_swiss_pillar3a or calculate_swiss_salary; usage is only implied by the tool name.

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