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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the calculation methodology (44h weekly = 220h monthly CLT divisor) and the behavioral adjustment logic (discounting commute time and expenses that exist only because of work). It doesn't mention rounding or exact output structure, but for a pure calculation tool, this is adequate.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. The core calculation and its variants are front-loaded, followed by parameter guidance. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is low-complexity: 4 scalar parameters, no nested objects, no output schema. The description names all parameters, requiredness, and the two outputs (legal hourly value and real hourly value). It does not explicitly state output units or rounding, but these are reasonably implied by the salary and hours context.

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 baseline is 3. The description names the required and optional parameters and reinforces the exact English names, but it adds no deeper semantics beyond what the schema already provides for each field.

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 and resource: it calculates the hourly wage using the CLT divisor and also computes a 'real' hourly value by discounting commute time and work-related costs. This clearly distinguishes it from the many calculate_* siblings by naming the exact calculation method and the adjusted output.

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 lists required and optional parameters and instructs the agent to use exact English names, which is clear operational guidance. It does not name alternative sibling tools or exclusion scenarios, but the intended use-case—hourly wage with commuting/cost adjustments—is clear enough from context.

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