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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like whether it reads data, caches results, or requires authentication. It only states the purpose, leaving the agent uninformed about side effects or assumptions (e.g., tax model used).

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 sentence with no waste, but it is too brief to convey necessary details. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it. It fails to explain parameter dependencies, output format, or constraints.

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 0%, and the description mentions only 'gross income' out of four parameters. It does not explain the meaning or format of 'limit', 'currency', or 'countries', leaving the agent to infer or guess.

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 compares disposable income outcomes across countries for a given gross income. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like run_salary_comparison which likely handles gross salary comparison. However, it could be more precise about what 'disposable income outcomes' entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as run_salary_comparison or run_tax_estimate. The description only implies usage for a given gross income but lacks context or exclusion criteria.

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