calculer_indemnites_conges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently states the tool compares methods and estimates social charges, but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (presumably read-only) or permission requirements. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core calculation and output (comparison, most favorable method, social charges). It could mention the output format or structure, but the information provided is largely sufficient for an AI agent to understand usage.

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%, with each parameter having a description in the schema. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., naming the methods) but does not provide substantial value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool calculates paid leave indemnities using two legal methods (maintien de salaire and dixième), compares them to indicate the most favorable, and includes social charges estimation. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'calculer_indemnites_licenciement'.

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 context (calculating paid leave indemnities) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tools cover distinct topics, so the context is clear but not fully explicit.

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