Зарплата на руки и стоимость сотрудника

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it explains the returned fields first_month, rows, totals, notes when NDFL brackets rise and when contribution caps apply, and states the child-deduction limitation. It does not cover error handling or rounding behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the calculation, then moves to return shape, inverse sibling, limitation, and network constraint. Every sentence adds useful selection or invocation context, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 seven-parameter calculator with no output schema, the description is complete enough: the schema covers parameter semantics, while the description covers the calculation behavior, return fields, inverse sibling, and key limitation. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so the remaining description burden is appropriately met.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters in detail, including tariff and accident_pct. The description mentions gross, bonus, and bonus timing at a high level, but it does not add syntax or format meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: it calculates net salary and employer cost from a gross monthly salary across a year, with progressive NDFL and contribution details. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the inverse sibling by naming salary_from_net as the reverse task, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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 names the inverse alternative explicitly: 'Обратная задача — salary_from_net', and it states an exclusion ('Вычеты на детей не учитываются') plus the constraint that it is pure calculation with no network. This gives clear routing context for gross-to-net employee-cost calculations.

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