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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses critical behavior: deterministic results, citation of primary sources, $0.02/call pricing, and a billing guarantee that errors/unverified rules are never charged. This gives the agent confidence in reliability and cost, though it does not cover the free discovery-call flow described in the x_payment 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?

Four short sentences deliver purpose, authority, cost, and reliability with zero redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core operation, and every subsequent sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, nested dependents, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits input semantics for most parameters, return format, and integration details like the payment flow. An agent would need to inspect the schema and probe to use this tool 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 coverage is only 13% (only x_payment has a description), and the description does not compensate. It clarifies annual_gross_yen as the primary input and hints at resident tax for prefecture, but leaves age, year, dependents, and annual_bonus_yen unexplained. The description adds little over the raw schema for most parameters.

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 precisely states the tool's function: converting annual gross salary to net take-home, listing the exact deduction components (social insurance, income tax, resident tax). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jp_bonus_net (bonus-focused) and jp_payroll_suite (suite-level), making its specific scope clear.

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 implies its use for annual gross salary net calculations but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide exclusions such as 'for bonuses use jp_bonus_net'. The scope is clear, but no direct usage guidance is given beyond the core input.

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