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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is 'gross before tax' and enumerates the returned components (regular and overtime hours and pay plus the week's total), which pre-empts the most likely misunderstanding about net vs. gross. It stops short of stating error behavior (e.g. what happens if hours_worked is supplied with california), so it is not a full 5.

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?

Three sentences in a deliberate order: what it computes, how to invoke each rule set, then where to go for related work. No filler and no repetition of the enum values or numeric bounds already in the schema.

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?

An output schema and rich annotations exist, so the description need not restate return shapes, yet it still front-loads the gross-before-tax caveat. The subtle California seventh-consecutive-day condition and the double-time-over-12 threshold are both surfaced, which is the main correctness risk in this tool.

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, but the description adds cross-parameter routing semantics the schema only states piecemeal: it explains that extra_pay_usd is pay that 'counts toward the regular rate, such as a nondiscretionary bonus', which conveys the legal concept rather than just the type. It also reinforces that daily_hours is a seven-entry per-day breakdown for the California path.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calculate a week of overtime pay') plus the two governing rule regimes (federal FLSA over-40 weekly, California daily/eighth-day/seventh-day/double-time). The scope is precise enough that the agent can distinguish it from payroll-adjacent siblings without opening any schema.

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 maps each rule_set to the inputs it requires ('rule_set federal with total hours worked... use rule_set california with the hours worked on each of the seven days'). It also names two alternatives and the condition selecting them: us_paycheck_take_home with overtime_hours_per_week for take-home pay, hourly_to_salary for pay without overtime.

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