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. The description adds real context beyond that: "Free, no quota, no side effects," plus the tax-modeling details (SS capped at the wage base, additional Medicare surcharge) that explain how the number is derived.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core calculation and scope, followed by the differentiating rationale. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema fully documents inputs, so the description's main remaining job is framing the computation, which it does. The one gap is that with no output schema, it doesn't hint at the return shape (e.g., a breakdown of deductions vs. a single net figure), leaving the agent to infer output structure.

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 including the enum for filingStatus. The description adds no parameter-level guidance (no mention of pretax401k or filing status), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Calculate) and resource (net/take-home pay) with precise scope: gross US salary, tax year 2026, and the exact components (federal income tax, SS to wage base, Medicare surcharge, state income tax). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_tax_brackets and get_salary_percentiles, which do not compute net 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?

Offers a directive ("Use this instead of estimating") and a rationale (state rules differ, nine states levy no income tax), which implies the usage context. However, it never explicitly names which sibling to use for a different need (e.g., get_tax_brackets for bracket detail or compare_cost_of_living for cross-state comparison), so routing is left partly to inference.

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