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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the account is emptied exactly at the deadline, balances and tax are computed at a flat rate, and year-one-to-nine minimums follow the 2024 final regulations with the Single Life Table factor reduced by one each year. It does not describe output formatting or edge cases, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 purpose and lists the outputs efficiently. The embedded regulatory clause about the Single Life Table adds specificity but makes the sentence somewhat long; overall it is appropriately sized and 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?

For a financial tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential outputs and the key regulatory branch. It does not spell out output structure, rounding, or edge cases, but combined with the rich input schema and read-only annotations it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 100% and each parameter already has a descriptive comment, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the role of years_remaining and owner_had_started_rmds through the 10-year rule and minimum-distribution branch, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource and scope: 'a withdrawal schedule for a non-spouse heir under the 10-year rule,' then enumerates concrete outputs such as level annual withdrawals, year-by-year balances, tax, and annual minimums. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like rmd_calculate or sustainable_withdrawal by subject matter.

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 use condition is explicit: non-spouse heir under the 10-year rule, with a clearly described branch for when the owner had already started required distributions. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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