calculate_belgian_pension

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output (monthly pension estimate) but lacks disclosure of limitations, assumptions, or behavioral traits like accuracy or data freshness. The inaccuracy in parameter description undermines transparency.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the verb 'Estimate' and key inputs, but the inclusion of an incorrect parameter (status vs household_type) reduces clarity. The see-also reference is useful but could be more concise.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but it fails to mention that the estimate is approximate or any assumptions. It also misrepresents one input parameter. For a retirement planning tool, more context about limitations would be expected.

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. The description adds an 'inputs' list but incorrectly replaces 'household_type' with 'status (employee/self-employed)', which is misleading. It does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states it estimates Belgian retirement pension based on career years and average salary, with a specific use case for retirement planning in Belgium. However, it inaccurately mentions 'status (employee/self-employed)' which is not in the schema, causing potential confusion.

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?

It provides clear context ('Use for retirement planning in Belgium') and suggests a related resource ('See list_bundles'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with sibling tools like 'calculate_belgian_income_tax'.

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