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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world calculation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the flat 22% federal supplemental withholding rate, FICA and state tax treatment, refund/owed modeling, salary context, and 2026 IRS Pub. 15 rules.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core calculation and rules. It is efficient, though the run-on structure makes it slightly harder to scan than an ideal definition.

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 moderately complex tax-calculation tool with no output schema, the description covers the calculation basis, tax components, salary context, and rules year. It leaves some gaps around filing_status effects and state-specific variation, but is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds some meaning by mentioning salary and state tax, but it does not explain filing_status behavior or add materially 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?

The description clearly states the tool calculates what a bonus check pays after federal supplemental withholding, FICA, and state tax, including refund/owed effects. It is specific about the resource and calculation, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tools calculate_paycheck and compare_states.

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?

Usage is implied by the bonus-check scenario and the reference to salary, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus calculate_paycheck or compare_states. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is given.

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