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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's function, outputs (gross, employer cost, remittances), and special handling for Quebec. It does not mention side effects or auth needs, but as a calculation tool, this is acceptable.

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 long, each serving a distinct purpose: core function in the first, context and differentiation in the second. No wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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's complexity (3 required params, no output schema, 2 siblings), the description adequately explains outputs and supported provinces. It lacks details on output format or remittance breakdown specifics, but overall sufficient for agent decision-making.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of target_net_pay as the 'agreed take-home amount' and clarifying the pay frequency and province context, enhancing understanding beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool inverts payroll from net to gross, specifies the context (household employers, nanny payroll), and lists supported provinces. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tools by describing its unique reverse calculation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (when agreeing on take-home pay) and contrasts with CRA's PDOC. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or differentiate from sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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