Comparatif des statuts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what each mode computes, but says nothing about the assumptions behind the numbers (tax brackets, year, cotisation rates), whether results are estimates, or how the comparison is presented. That is a meaningful gap for a calculation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the comparison scope comes first and the mode semantics second. The mode clause is slightly repetitive relative to the revenuMensuelSouhaite schema text, but it is not wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say something about the result (a comparative table of net figures per status, in what units). It covers inputs and the two mode semantics but leaves the return shape and underlying fiscal assumptions undocumented — adequate but with clear gaps.

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 67% and the two documented parameters already match the description's wording, but the description supplies the crucial meaning of the "mode" enum, which the schema lists with no description at all. It does not add anything about chargesMensuelles beyond the schema, which is the residual gap.

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 ("Compare") and enumerates the exact statuses covered (salarié, micro-entreprise, portage, SASU salaire/dividendes, EURL à l'IR), so the scope is unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the single-status siblings (auto_entrepreneur, portage_salarial, freelance_tjm_ca_net) by being the cross-status comparison, but never names them.

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 two modes ("ca" and "net") frame the two use cases, which implies when to reach for each, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over the individual-status siblings or what prerequisites (e.g. regime assumptions) apply. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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