calculer_charges_ae

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what is calculated, not whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. For a calculation tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and key inclusions. It is concise with no redundant information, though a bit more structure (e.g., listing parameters) could improve clarity.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only high-level semantics. It does not explain default behaviors for optional parameters or calculation assumptions. Adequate but missing details like rate application.

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 parameters are documented in schema. The description adds context by mentioning ACRE and versement liberatoire, which map to boolean parameters. However, it does not explain enum values or number format beyond schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as calculating social charges for auto-entrepreneurs/micro-entrepreneurs, specifying which components are included (cotisations sociales, CFP, versement liberatoire, ACRE). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like simuler_chomage or declaration_urssaf.

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?

The description implies usage for calculating auto-entrepreneur charges but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned despite siblings like declaration_urssaf or simuler_impots.

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