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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioural context by noting that employer social contributions are itemised and that the tool supports a reverse budget mode, although it does not describe return structure in detail.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and immediately states the key input choice. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 an eight-parameter calculation tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains the two calculation modes and the itemised employer-cost output. A minor gap remains around what happens if neither or both of the key inputs are supplied, but the overall definition is otherwise complete enough to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are already well documented. The description still adds value by clarifying that gross_annual and budget_annual represent the two calculation directions, which is not explicit from the schema alone.

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 states a specific calculation resource: employer cost of an Indonesian salary, including itemised social contributions, and also the reverse budget-to-gross direction. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings such as net_salary or gross_for_target_net, but its purpose is still clear.

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?

It gives useful mode-selection guidance by saying to provide gross_annual or budget_annual, which implies forward versus reverse calculation. However, it does not explain when to use this tool instead of siblings, nor does it state exclusions or what happens if neither parameter is supplied.

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