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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/no-destruction/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: it returns monthly and annual amounts plus rate year and effective date, reads rating to the nearest 10%, and applies dependents only at 30%+. It does not detail error or edge-case handling, but the disclosure is rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger and the two negative scoping statements, then the output description, then detailed dependency rules. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the long final sentence strains readability.

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 carries the return shape itself (monthly and annual amounts, rate year, effective date), plus rounding and dependency thresholds and explicit out-of-scope cases. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the 30%-and-above threshold at which dependents matter, and the scope that children means under-18 only (excluding 18-23 school-age, parents, aid and attendance). This complements rather than repeats 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+resource ('monthly VA disability compensation amount for a given rating percentage and dependent situation') and explicitly bounds what it is not ('not what a specific veteran is paid', 'not a back-pay calculation'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like compute_retroactive_pay and calculate_combined_rating 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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when a veteran wants the monthly... amount') and names the alternatives it is not (individual payment lookup, back-pay calculation). The condition selecting this tool is stated unambiguously.

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