calculate_swiss_lpp

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the return type but omits whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. For a calculator, mutation is unlikely, but the lack of explicit transparency is a gap.

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 with no redundant information. It states the purpose, return shape, and a pointer to related tools. Every word earns its place.

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 has an output schema, the description still adds value by summarizing the return as {eligible, note}. It mentions age brackets but does not elaborate on what 'eligible' means or what the note contains. Overall sufficient for a simple calculator.

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 schema already documents both parameters well (gross_annual in CHF, age). The description adds the concept of 'age bracket', which gives context beyond the schema. Baseline 3, with minor added value.

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 identifies the tool's function: calculating Swiss occupational pension contributions by age bracket. It names the specific resource (LPP / 2e pilier) and verb (Calculate), and distinguishes itself from related tools by referencing list_bundles for other Swiss calculators.

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 provides minimal guidance: it suggests consulting list_bundles for related 'finance-suisse' calculators, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others or when not to use it. Implied usage, but no exclusions or clear context.

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