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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return shape and names the ARE scheme, but discloses no behavioral traits such as assumption of a 261-day divisor, applicability conditions, or capping behavior in the min/max fields.

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 compact sentences that lead with the purpose and follow with the return fields and a cross-reference; nothing is wasted. Slightly weakened by enumerating return fields that the existing output schema already covers.

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 single-parameter calculator with a full output schema, the description supplies purpose, ARE context, and a sibling pointer, which is enough for correct invocation. The redundant return-field list and absent usage conditions are minor gaps.

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 the single parameter carries a full definition (SJR in euros, last 12 months salary / 261), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 ('Estimate') and a precise resource ('French unemployment benefit (ARE)'), with the French qualifier distinguishing it from the many other benefit and finance calculators in the sibling list. An agent can identify exactly what this tool computes 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 only guidance is 'See list_bundles for related finance-france calculators,' which is a cross-reference rather than a when-to-use/when-not rule. It never says which sibling to prefer (e.g., calculate_prime_activite, calculate_housing_aid) or what conditions warrant this tool.

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