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.