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

The annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive calculation, so the description appropriately focuses on adding calculation context. It discloses the accrual formula, the relevant 50-year period, and that results include gross and net monthly amounts plus holiday allowance. It stops short of stating assumptions such as the exact AOW age or full AOW amount used.

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 dense sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the resource and date, then moves into eligibility, formula, and output components in a logical order.

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 two-parameter calculator with annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the outputs as gross and net monthly amounts plus holiday allowance and explains the accrual basis. Minor assumptions such as the exact AOW age and full AOW reference amount are left implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the enum and default for living_situation. The description adds value by explaining how insured_years drives the calculation through the 2%-of-full-AOW-per-year formula, giving the parameter meaning beyond the schema text.

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 identifies a specific resource and scope: Dutch AOW state pension from 1 July 2026 for single or partner situations, with the 2%-per-insured-year formula and monthly gross/net plus holiday allowance outputs. It is clearly distinct from sibling pension tools such as pension_annuity_room_jaarruimte, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'calculate'.

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 implied by the stated date, living-situation scope, and AOW formula, so an agent can infer this is for estimating AOW pension amounts. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling benefit or pension calculators, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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