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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the burden. It lists the output fields, giving insight into the result structure. However, it does not disclose behavioral details such as computation assumptions, data currency, or side effects, which are minimal for a calculator.

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 highly concise: two sentences efficiently conveying purpose, output structure, and a pointer to related tools. No extraneous words.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description provides adequate context: purpose, output fields, and a reference to related calculators. However, it lacks explanation of deductions or assumptions for Swiss salary calculation, which could be valuable.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description only references the parameter in the output example and does not add meaning beyond the schema's description of 'Gross monthly salary in CHF'.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Convert Swiss gross monthly salary to estimated net salary.' It uses a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('gross monthly salary to net salary'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_swiss_income_tax, which focus on specific components.

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 mentions 'See list_bundles for related 'finance-suisse' calculators', which hints at related tools but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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