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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: the reference date (1 July 2026), that the 8% holiday allowance is baked into the monthly/yearly figures, and the tax/allowance assumptions (single person, no 30% ruling, no pension contribution).

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?

One dense sentence plus a short scoping fragment; the resource and reference date are front-loaded, and each clause (rate, gross, net, allowance, assumptions) corresponds to a distinct output dimension. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return semantics — and it does, listing every value the caller receives (hourly rate, gross per month/year, net, zorgtoeslag). Combined with the explicit assumption set, an agent has enough to call and interpret results correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 21-and-older adult-rate rule and the 40-hour default. The description reinforces that hours-per-week drives the month/year figures but adds no new syntax, ranges, or edge cases beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (Dutch statutory minimum wage / wettelijk minimumloon) and precisely enumerates what is computed: hourly rate by age, gross month/year with 8% vakantiegeld, net after tax, and zorgtoeslag. This clearly separates it from generic siblings like net_salary_netherlands or gross_salary_for_target_net, which do not compute the statutory minimum.

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 context is only implied through the scope qualifier 'Single employee without the 30% ruling or a pension contribution,' which tells the agent when the answer does not apply but names no alternative tool for those cases (e.g. thirty_percent_ruling_timeline). There is no explicit 'use this when' statement or pointer to a sibling.

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