calculate_belgian_social_contributions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly lists the return fields, which adds transparency about the output structure. However, it does not mention any caveats (e.g., rate validity period, approximations), though for a calculator this is acceptable.

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 just two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second summarizes output fields and provides a pointer to related tools. Ideal length.

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 the tool's simplicity (one numeric input, output schema present), the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, and a hint to find related calculators. Missing details like exact rate source or year are minor omissions.

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 reaffirms the parameter as 'annual_income' in euros and shows how it maps to tiers in the output, adding marginal value beyond the schema's own description.

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 the verb 'Calculate' and the specific resource 'Belgian self-employed social contributions (cotisations INASTI)'. It distinguishes itself from numerous sibling calculators (e.g., calculate_belgian_income_tax) by targeting a distinct social contribution topic.

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 description indicates the tool is for self-employed social contributions but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., for employees, use other tools). The reference to list_bundles is helpful but does not provide direct guidance on exclusion criteria.

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