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 genuinely useful context beyond that: a paid package is required and each request costs 2 units, which matters for budgeting calls. It stops short of disclosing what the 12-month payroll response contains or how the two modes behave differently.

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 definition is short and front-loads the operation before the endpoint and pricing notes. The endpoint path is arguably redundant with the tool itself, but the pricing sentence earns its place. 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?

With five optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining how to call it correctly. It never states the brut/net exclusivity, what the 12-month payroll output looks like, or what happens if neither is supplied. For a dual-mode calculator this is a meaningful 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 80%, so the schema already documents ay, net, brut and engelli. The description adds nothing about parameter interaction, notably that 'ay' only matters in the net-to-gross direction and that brut/net are mutually exclusive. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 a specific domain operation: gross-to-net salary over a 12-month payroll, or net-to-gross. That is a clear verb+resource statement an agent can act on. It does not differentiate itself from the calculator siblings (hesapla_kidem, hesapla_kredi, hesapla_mevduat), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other hesapla_* calculators, and crucially no statement that the caller supplies either 'brut' or 'net' but not both. The two operating modes are named in the title but never explained as a choice the agent must make.

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