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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful pieces of context: the operation is a GET endpoint, and a paid subscription is required to call it. It says nothing about rate limits, error behavior, or output shape beyond the tavan/damga vergisi/net outline.

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 text is short and front-loaded, and the endpoint path plus package requirement earn their space. But the first line is a pure restatement of the title, and the extreme brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient writing.

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 four-parameter financial calculator with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what the two date parameters mean and what the returned figures represent. The parenthetical result hints (cap, stamp tax, net) help slightly, but an agent still cannot tell what the response object looks like or what convention the calculation follows.

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 only 50%: 'brut' and 'ek_odeme' are documented in the schema, while 'giris' and 'cikis' carry only a date format and no description at all. The description contributes no parameter meaning of its own, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented hire/termination dates, which are the crux of a severance computation.

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 names the resource (kıdem tazminatı) and the aspects it computes (tavan, damga vergisi, net), so an agent familiar with Turkish payroll terms can infer it is a severance-pay calculator. However, it is essentially a verbatim copy of the title with no verb and no differentiation from the sibling calculators hesapla_kredi, hesapla_mevduat, or vergi_maas.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; nothing tells the agent to prefer this over vergi_maas or hesapla_kredi. The only contextual note, 'Ücretli paket gerekir' (paid package required), is a prerequisite for access rather than a routing rule.

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