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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it returns a table comparing earnings at other rates and supports tiered calculation, which goes beyond the annotations and the schema.

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 computational behavior is front-loaded in two tight sentences with no waste. The trailing web-page URL adds little value for an agent but is negligible in size.

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 usefully characterizes the results (commission, total pay, comparison table, tier support) so the agent knows what it gets back. The only real gap is tier semantics and currency handling, which are minor for a 4-param optional-input calculator.

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 the schema fully documents base, rate, sales, and currency. The description loosely restates sale amount, rate, and base salary but adds no format or constraint detail, and never mentions the currency parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: it computes sales commission from sale amount and rate, adds base salary for total pay, and produces a comparison table. This clearly distinguishes it from salary_calculator and markup_calculator among the siblings. It stops short of naming alternatives, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The phrase 'Works tier by tier too' hints at a use case but doesn't explain the condition under which tiered mode applies.

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