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.