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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it doesn't say how taxes/deductions (fedPct, statePct, ssPct, medPct) are applied, whether gross is computed from rate×hours, or what the caller receives back given there is no output 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?

It is short, but shortness here is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose or scope that an agent could act on.

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?

A 21-parameter document-generation tool with 5% schema coverage and no output schema gets a three-word description that explains none of its inputs or its return value. This is far below what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 only 5% across 21 parameters, so the description carries nearly the full burden and delivers nothing. Optional fields like bonus, other, health, retire, ytdGross, otMultiplier, employerAddress, and employeeId are completely undocumented in both places.

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?

"Pay stub generator" restates the tool name and title without a specific verb, output format, or distinguishing scope. It does not say whether it produces a PDF, HTML, structured JSON, or plain text, which is the key ambiguity for a generator tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling business_* document tools. An agent has no basis for choosing this over, say, business_invoice_totals except the name.

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