Auto-entrepreneur

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that both tax regimes and ACRE are handled, which is genuine behavioral context. However, it says nothing about which parameters take precedence (caMensuel vs caAnnuel), the assumed 2026 parameter set, or whether missing inputs are defaulted — relevant for a pure calculator.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the outputs first and the special case (ACRE) last, with no filler. It is efficient, though thin enough that brevity shades into under-specification for an 8-parameter tool.

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 deterministic calculator with no output schema, the description does name the three return values (cotisations, impôt, revenu net) and the ACRE dimension. What is missing is input precedence and defaulting behavior, which matters given 8 parameters at 50% schema coverage.

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?

With 8 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, the description carries real compensating burden but adds little. It only hints at ACRE and the two tax modes (mapping loosely to acre/beneficiaireAcre and versementLiberatoire); caMensuel vs caAnnuel precedence, tauxPrelevementSource use, and default behavior remain undocumented in both places.

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 specific verb set (calcule) and precise resources: cotisations URSSAF, impôt (versement libératoire ou barème), revenu net, plus ACRE. This clearly separates it from siblings like seuils_micro_entreprise (thresholds only) or freelance_tjm_ca_net (TJM-based), though it never names any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the domain: the agent can infer it should be used for a micro-entrepreneur income simulation. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as comparatif_statuts or seuils_micro_entreprise, so the agent must infer boundaries from the name alone.

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