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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, covering safety. The description adds a valuable behavioral note—'Demo mode is limited to 2026'—which is beyond annotations and informs the agent of a constraint. No contradiction.

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 two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded. No unnecessary words or redundant details.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly adequate but lacks detail on the exact nature of the returned 'reference values' (e.g., which retirement accounts or formats). Since there's no output schema, more specificity would help an agent understand what to expect.

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 does not explain the 'year' parameter beyond the demo mode note that implies it matters. No explicit semantics for valid ranges or meaning are provided, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema info.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('retirement contribution reference values'), which is clear and distinct from sibling tax tools like tax_federal_brackets and tax_standard_deduction. It conveys exactly what the tool does without restating the name.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states its function and a demo mode limitation, leaving usage context implied by the name and purpose rather than explicit guidance.

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