calculate_retirement_pension

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the calculation is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects. The description only describes the output format, omitting important behavioral context for a non-annotated tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes output fields and a pointer to related tools. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff.

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?

For a calculator tool with an implied output schema (listed return fields), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and outputs. However, it assumes knowledge of French pension terminology (e.g., 'average_salary_best25') and does not explain calculation assumptions or data sources.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists return fields but adds no additional meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how parameters interact or suggest defaults beyond the schema's 'target_years' default.

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 uses a specific verb 'Estimate' and identifies the resource as 'French basic retirement pension (retraite de base Assurance Vieillesse)', clearly distinguishing it from other pension calculators like 'calculate_belgian_pension'. It also lists the output fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions 'See list_bundles for related finance-france calculators', which gives a hint about alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other pension calculators or provide any exclusions (e.g., not for supplementary pensions). The guidance is minimal.

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