Portage salarial

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safe, deterministic, offline nature is covered. The description adds nothing about what the computed figure represents (net before or after prélèvement à la source, whether frais professionnels are deducted or reimbursed on top), which is the one behavior an agent would actually need here.

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 well-formed sentence with the calculation and its inputs front-loaded; nothing redundant. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, so the score reflects efficiency rather than ideal coverage.

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?

Six optional parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of how tjm interacts with caMensuel or what the return value contains. For a calculation tool where the output shape is undefined, the description should at least state what is produced; it doesn't.

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 50%; the description names the business concepts behind three parameters (chiffre d'affaires, frais de gestion, frais professionnels), which partially compensates. It says nothing about tjm vs caMensuel (alternatives? derived?) nor about tauxPrelevementSource and joursTravaillesParMois, leaving half the inputs to the schema alone.

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 concrete verb ('Calcule') and a specific resource ('salaire net en portage salarial'), plus the three families of inputs it consumes. This clearly separates it from generic siblings like salaire_brut_en_net or freelance_tjm_ca_net, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

No indication of when to pick this over the closest alternatives (freelance_tjm_ca_net, comparatif_statuts, auto_entrepreneur). No prerequisites, no note on whether tjm or caMensuel should be supplied. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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