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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description is fully consistent with them (no contradiction). It adds genuine context beyond annotations: results reproduce IRS published examples to the dollar, the tool returns payments under all three methods, and it surfaces the permitted rate ceiling and the modification date — behaviors not visible in the schema or 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core computation, then an accuracy/verifiability claim, then a compact list of additional outputs. The URL is a short parenthetical that earns its place as a correctness reference. No wasted words for a tool with this much domain complexity.

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 10-parameter financial computation with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what is computed, the governing IRS authority, the accuracy guarantee, and the full set of reported outputs. The main gap is the total absence of any description of the return shape, which matters more here because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it reinforces that all three methods are returned and provides a verification link, but those are behavioral claims rather than parameter semantics. The schema itself already carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 computation — the annual 72(t) SEPP payment under all three Notice 2022-6 methods — and names the governing IRS authority and the 2022 mortality tables. It is clearly distinguishable from overlapping siblings like rmd_calculate (single-method RMD) and sepp_72t_lock_in_end (modification timing) because the three-method payment computation is the headline.

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 usage context is implied clearly for anyone needing a 72(t) payment figure, but the description never names an alternative or exclusion. This is a real gap because the sibling set includes rmd_calculate and sepp_72t_lock_in_end, and the description's own claim that it 'reports when the series may be modified' overlaps with that sibling without telling an agent which tool to prefer for that question.

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