calculate_prime_activite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions returning an estimated benefit and eligibility note, but does not disclose limitations, accuracy assumptions, or required conditions (e.g., French residency). Without annotations, this is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 concise with two sentences and a helpful pointer. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential details without extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists) and the description covering purpose, inputs, and output, it is fairly complete. However, it could include more detail on eligibility factors or calculation basis for completeness.

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%, and the parameters (salary, household_size) are self-explanatory with descriptions in the schema. The description briefly lists inputs but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool estimates French prime d'activité monthly amount for low-income workers. The specific resource ('French prime d'activité') and verb ('estimate') are unambiguous, and the context distinguishes it from many sibling calculator tools.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use for low-income workers checking eligibility', providing clear context. It also references 'list_bundles' for related calculators, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives within the same server.

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