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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the calculation formula, SECURE 2.0 required-beginning-age rules, due date, ten-year projection assumption, and spouse-adjustment caveat. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 but purposeful sentence followed by a direct usage instruction. Every phrase contributes, though the long sentence could be slightly restructured for faster parsing.

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 no output schema, the description tells the agent what the result will include: the RMD, due date, ten-year projection, and spouse-adjustment note. It covers key rules and caveats, but it could explicitly state exclusions such as inherited-IRAs and mention the IRS table source more precisely.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces the role of balance and birth year via the formula, and mentions expected_return's projection-only role, but does not add substantial per-parameter 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: calculating required minimum distributions for traditional IRAs/401(k)s, with the formula and governing rules spelled out. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool inherited_ira_schedule, so the differentiation is not complete.

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 phrase 'Use this tool for any RMD question rather than estimating from memory' gives an explicit call-to-action. However, it is overbroad and provides no exclusions or alternative conditions, especially given that inherited IRA RMDs are handled by a sibling tool.

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