Nettomaandinkomen

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

The description explicitly says 'pure berekening zonder externe calls', which adds a behavioral guarantee beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It also lists the tax components included (schijven, algemene heffingskorting, arbeidskorting), giving an agent a solid mental model of what the calculation covers. This does not contradict any annotations.

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 one dense sentence that front-loads the core transformation and then lists the relevant variables and options. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail; every clause 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?

For a simple calculator, the description is largely complete: it states the output (net monthly salary), the fiscal year, the included credits, the pure-calculation behavior, and the available options, while the schema covers constraints and defaults. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the exact result shape or rounding would improve completeness, but nothing critical 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents all five parameters with meaningful descriptions. The description adds only a high-level summary of the pension and 30%-ruling options, without providing new semantic detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Berekent') and clearly identifies both the input (bruto maandloon) and output (netto maandloon), plus the exact legal framework (Nederlandse loonheffing 2026). It is very clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as how it differs from nmi_netto_inkomen_volledig.

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 gives clear context: use this to compute a Dutch net monthly salary from gross with optional pension and 30%-ruling settings. However, it does not state when not to use it or which sibling tool covers related cases (e.g., full net income, WIA, WW), so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is known to be a safe, side-effect-free calculation. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the calculation logic (splitting regular and special levies, including pension deduction), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and key calculation features. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundant phrasing or filler. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description explains the output (net yearly and monthly income) and the calculation components (pension deduction, special rates). Since there is no output schema, the description adequately sets expectations for the result. It does not detail edge cases or error handling, but for a read-only calculator with well-documented parameters, the provided context is sufficient.

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%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-specific details, but it does contextualize some parameters (e.g., pension deduction maps to pensionYearly, special income maps to brutoBijzonderLoonYearly) in the calculation narrative. This matches the baseline for full 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?

The description clearly states the tool computes net yearly and monthly income for 2026, including pension deduction and special rate for holiday pay, 13th month, and IKB. It also mentions splitting regular and special levies per Dutch tax rules. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmi_bruto_netto, which likely handles basic bruto-netto conversion.

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 usage when pension deductions or special income components (vakantiegeld, 13e maand, IKB) are present, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or direct comparison with siblings, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so a safe compute operation is expected. The description adds value beyond those annotations by disclosing the calculation behavior: the exact benefit rates, the basis on SV-loon, and the 'maximumdagloon als grens' (maximum daily wage cap). No contradiction with annotations is present.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the verb, resource, basis, the three rates, and the cap with zero filler. Every element earns its place, and the computation logic is packed efficiently without sacrificing clarity.

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 straightforward calculator with two fully documented parameters and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers all variants, rates, and the cap. The only gap is the absence of any hint about the output format/return shape, but since there is no output schema and the computation logic is fully specified, this is a minor omission.

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% — grossMonthlySalary ('Laatstverdiende bruto maandsalaris in euro vóór arbeidsongeschiktheid') and includesHolidayPay ('8% vakantiegeld zit al in het opgegeven bruto maandsalaris') are both fully documented in the schema. The description's 'SV-loon' concept adds a framing term but no new syntactic or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Berekent' = calculates), a distinct resource ('WIA-uitkering 2026'), and enumerates the three benefit variants with explicit rates (IVA 75%, WGA-loongerelateerd 70%, WGA-vervolg) plus the maximum daily wage cap. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like nmi_ww_uitkering (WW benefit) and the bruto/netto calculators without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for WIA benefit calculation because the benefit type is named, which distinguishes it from the WW sibling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the SV-loon context), and no alternatives named. Sibling differentiation is left to the consumer.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it explains the 75%/70% phase structure, the SV-loon basis, and the maximumdagloon cap. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the essential calculation rules without any filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is a relatively simple calculation with three parameters and no output schema. The description communicates the input basis and the expected gross/net result, which is sufficient for selection and invocation. It stops short of describing the exact output shape, but that is a minor gap.

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%, so the parameter details are already well documented. The description adds general calculation context but does not meaningfully clarify individual parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Berekent') and a clear resource ('WW-uitkering') while specifying the exact regulatory basis (UWV-regels 2026). The phase details and basis on SV-loon make it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like WIA-uitkering or generic bruto/netto calculators.

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 clearly implies this is for WW benefit calculations under 2026 UWV rules, which is the right context for the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some differentiation to the title and sibling list.

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