Оклад по сумме на руки

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotent, no open world), and the description reinforces this with 'Только вычисление, без сети' plus the progressive-NDFL behavior keyed off income_before. It also lists the returned values (gross, ndfl, net, взносы, стоимость) since no output schema exists, but says nothing about edge cases such as zero or implausibly high net.

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?

Four short sentences ordered purpose → what if income_before is set → return values → when to use / alternative / no network. No filler, and the key scoping route to salary_calc is front-loaded before the closing constraint.

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 no output schema, the description steps in and enumerates the returned fields (gross, ndfl, net, contributions, employer cost). Combined with the alternative-tool routing and the network-free note, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine semantic link the schema does not: income_before changes which progressive NDFL bracket/rate the calculation uses. That relationship is the non-obvious part of the call and is called out explicitly.

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?

States a precise verb and resource (finds the gross salary needed to produce a given net) and explicitly names the sibling it is not: 'прямой расчёт по окладу — salary_calc'. An agent can separate it from salary_calc and ndfl_calc without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering context ('Используйте при найме, когда кандидат называет сумму «на руки»') and names the alternative tool for the opposite direction of calculation. Both the when and the when-otherwise are present.

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