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.