Retraite et prévoyance des indépendants

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

Annotations already declare a pure read-only, idempotent, closed-world computation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what is actually computed (including trimestres validés and IJ maladie, which an agent could not guess), but it omits that results are rule-dependent estimates (schema cites 2026 parameters and specific décrets) and says nothing about precision, rounding or caveats.

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 with the verb first and the computed outputs enumerated, no filler. It is slightly dense in how it stacks four output types, but every clause carries information.

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 does the necessary job of naming the returned figures, which is the key completeness requirement here. However, for a four-parameter tool with two undocumented parameters and regime-dependent branching, the description leaves the agent without enough to know which inputs are expected together (e.g. activiteMicro vs profession).

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 only 50%; regime and profession have no descriptions at all, and the description does not explain how the micro vs réel choice or the profession changes the calculation. It only implicitly maps revenusAnnuels ("selon son revenu annuel"), leaving the agent to infer the branching logic of four parameters from enums 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?

Specific verb ("Estime") plus a well-defined resource set: cotisations retraite base/complémentaire, prévoyance, trimestres validés and IJ maladie for an indépendant. It is clearly distinct from siblings like salaire_brut_en_net or seuils_micro_entreprise, though the description never explicitly says how it differs from auto_entrepreneur or comparatif_statuts, which also deal with self-employed contribution regimes.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Given the sibling list contains auto_entrepreneur and comparatif_statuts that plausibly overlap on self-employed social contributions, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap; the only hint is the implicit "selon son revenu annuel" scoping.

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