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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is deterministic, cites primary sources, and does not charge for errors or unverified rules, which is valuable behavioral context. It also notes the $0.02/call fee. This goes beyond a simple 'calculates tax' statement and provides transparency about reliability and billing.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes pricing and behavioral notes. Every clause adds value without repetition or fluff. It is concise yet informative.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and minimal schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the output format, how to interpret results, or the relationship between parameters and tax rules. While it mentions deterministic behavior and sources, it lacks essential operational details for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 20% (only x_payment is described). The description does not explain payout_yen, years_of_service, disability, or is_officer parameters, nor their expected formats or relationships to the tax rules. The mention of 'deduction by years of service' hints at years_of_service but does not provide sufficient detail for correct parameter usage.

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 computes retirement income tax with specific rules (deduction by years of service, half-taxation, rounding) and distinguishes it from sibling tax tools like jp_bonus_net and jp_payroll_net. The verb 'Retirement income tax' and the detailed scope leave no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 usage for retirement tax calculations and mentions the billing model, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like jp_payroll_suite. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are given, so the guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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