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

It discloses the main calculation behavior: CLT adds the 13th salary and vacation bonus, making the year 13.33 salaries. However, it does not explain how months_worked affects the calculation or what exactly the tool returns, which leaves some behavior to inference.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core calculation, then the CLT formula, then the use case and parameter guidance. Every sentence adds necessary information without padding.

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 simple calculator with three parameters the description is mostly sufficient, but the handling of months_worked is ambiguous and there is no explicit statement about the output format or whether the result is gross. These gaps matter because the schema alone does not provide them.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage. The description repeats the required/optional status and parameter names, but adds no new semantic meaning 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 verb and resource: it calculates how much a monthly salary yields in a year. It also explains the CLT-specific formula (13.33 salaries) and the comparison context, making it distinguishable from siblings like calculate_thirteenth_salary or calculate_vacation_pay.

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 gives a clear use case: comparing a CLT proposal with a PJ proposal. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the intended scenario is well stated.

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