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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations, including the calculation method, required beginning age rules under SECURE 2.0, the due date, and the ten-year projection at an assumed return.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core computation and then adds the key supporting details, all of which are relevant to invoking the tool correctly.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and a tax/retirement domain, the description covers the main inputs and outputs well: balance, birth year, projection, and due date. Optional parameter behavior is left to the schema, which fully describes those fields, so the overall context is sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context tying balance and birth_year to the formula, and mentions the projection concept, but it does not add detailed per-parameter guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 defines the tool's purpose: calculating the required minimum distribution from a traditional IRA, 401(k), or similar account. It gives the exact formula, references the IRS Uniform Lifetime Table, and lists additional outputs like due date and ten-year projection, making it distinct from sibling tools such as inherited_ira_schedule or sepp_72t.

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 provides clear context for when the tool applies: RMD calculations for traditional retirement accounts, not other withdrawal strategies. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the context is unambiguous.

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