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

Annotations already cover idempotency, read-only status, and destructiveness, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It does add useful context by disclosing the flat $0.05 cost, which is behaviorally relevant. However, it doesn't describe what the call actually returns or whether any records are created, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core outputs and ends with the pricing detail. Every clause adds information, and there is no redundant filler. It is an excellent example of concise, scannable content.

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?

This is a complex 7-parameter tool with nested objects, no output schema, and many payroll-related siblings, yet the description only gives a high-level component list. It doesn't explain the output shape, clarify vague terms like 'income walls,' or discuss the payment flow despite the x_payment field being central to the call. The schema fills input semantics, but the description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, so the schema carries the semantic load. The tool description itself provides no additional parameter-level detail, such as how 'income walls' relate to annual_gross_yen or how dependents affects the calculation. A baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the 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 clearly states the tool's scope: it computes net salary, social insurance, income walls, and optional bonus together in one call. It is not a bare tautology, and the listed components distinguish it from sibling tools like jp_payroll_net or jp_social_insurance. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies the tool is meant for bundled payroll calculations, which provides some usage context. But it never states when to prefer this suite over individual tools like jp_payroll_net, jp_social_insurance, or jp_bonus_net, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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