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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behaviour, so the description is freed to add methodology: which taxes are modeled (federal, Social Security, Medicare, state), that BEA regional price parities including rent drive the cost adjustment, and an explicit exclusion of city and county income taxes. That exclusion is exactly the kind of scope caveat an agent needs; only error handling and place-resolution failure modes are unstated.

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 sentences, no filler, with the comparison setup first and the return payload enumerated afterward. The opening clause 'each a pay figure in a state or one of the 50 largest metro areas' is slightly compressed/awkward but earns its place as a scope constraint.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly (take-home, take-home at national prices, comparison verdict and magnitude, matching salary, optional distribution placement). For a 6-parameter analysis tool that is nearly complete; invalid-place behaviour is the only notable omission.

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 all six parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it ties the job parameter to the distribution output and narrows places to 'a state or one of the 50 largest metro areas', but says nothing about unit handling (year vs hour) or pay formatting that the schema does not already cover.

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 names a specific operation on a specific resource: two US job offers compared after federal/state tax and regional prices. It is clearly distinct from get_pay and check_pay (single-figure lookups) even though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 scenario ('two US job offers') and the optional job parameter is described as adding distribution placement, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to get_pay/check_pay for single-figure checks.

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