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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results are pre-tax, and the min/max interplay ('if below the minimum, the cap wins' via schema) is clarified. Return format is handled by the output schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 core operation and formula are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage and then the alternative-tool routing. Dense but nearly every sentence earns its place; only the long first sentence is slightly heavy.

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 9-parameter calculation tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, the description is complete: it gives the formula, usage framing, the pre-tax caveat, and sibling disambiguation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 parameters are fully documented already (baseline 3). The description nonetheless reinforces the calculation semantics (weekly pay, per-year-of-service multiplier, optional min/max, PTO payout) and the pre-tax caveat, adding slight value over the schema.

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 ('Estimate a severance package') and spells out the exact formula (weeks per year × years × weekly pay, plus PTO, health, lump sums). It also names the sibling it is not (cost_of_a_bad_hire), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 gives both personas/use cases ('employer budgeting an exit or an employee checking an offer') and routes the alternative scenario to cost_of_a_bad_hire. It also explains that inputs come from the plan's terms because no federal formula exists, which frames correct usage.

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