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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'Only computes; stores nothing', which is mildly redundant, and it does not discuss rate staleness beyond naming the 'month the rates were last updated' return field. Useful but not adding much beyond structured data.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then return values, then scope limits — nothing is wasted. The opening sentence is dense with clauses but still readable, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description deliberately enumerates the return payload (gross, net, income tax, contributions, employer cost, effective rate, rate update month, link), which is exactly what an agent needs to reason about results. Parameters are fully schema-documented and annotations cover the safety profile, leaving no material gap.

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 all five parameters (amount, locale, period, region, direction) are already documented with units and enum meanings. The description restates the direction modes in prose but adds no syntax, currency, or default detail beyond the schema — baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calculate take-home pay from a gross salary') plus the exact scope (Albania or Kosovo) and the inverse direction (gross needed for a target net). An agent can distinguish this from the unrelated siblings (create_cv, run_tool, search_tools) immediately.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('salary, wage or payslip questions about Albania or Kosovo') paired with an explicit when-not ('it doesn't cover other countries'). No sibling alternative is needed because the other tools are unrelated, and the two computation modes are stated up front.

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