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 genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the sufficiency table covers ages 20–62, out-of-range ages are handled in a defined way, and the actual withdrawal right and balance are confirmed downstream by ENPF and operators, which is an important caveat about result authority.

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?

Front-loaded with the core comparison, then boundary rules, then the caveat. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the trilingual title keyword string at the start is a minor overhead for an agent reading the definition.

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 return-value burden and does so: it states the tool returns either the amount above the threshold or the shortfall, plus the qualifier about downstream confirmation. Combined with full schema coverage and clear annotations, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the age parameter maps to the threshold table (below-table ages, above-table treated as retirement). It does not elaborate on the lang parameter or the tenge rounding, which are already documented in 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it compares mandatory ENPF (OPV) pension savings against the 2026 minimum sufficiency threshold for a given age and returns the surplus available for housing/treatment or the shortfall. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like kz_otbasy_mortgage or kz_mrp_convert without opening either schema.

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 clear usage context for the housing/treatment withdrawal set of use cases and boundary behaviors (ages below the table yield no available amount, ages above are treated as retirement age). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool or state when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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