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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so substantively: it names the exact federal rates (22%, 37% above $1,000,000), explains state supplemental methods (flat, aggregate, none), and includes FICA. It does not mention limitations or output format, but the disclosed scope is strong and goes well beyond the tool name.

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 core purpose ('What is actually withheld') and packs essential specifics (rates, thresholds, state methods, FICA) without wasted words. Every element earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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 the complexity of tax withholding and the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify return values and edge cases. It clearly explains what factors are considered, but it does not describe the shape of the result or caveats (e.g., local taxes, wage base limits). It is useful but not fully complete for a tool with no output schema.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is a 3. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, except indirectly by mentioning state treatment methods, which the schema's state description does not elaborate. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 specifies the tool's function: computing what is withheld from a bonus in 2026, covering federal supplemental rates, state treatment, and FICA. It distinguishes itself from siblings like compare_states or get_state_rates by emphasizing the combined withholding computation and the bonus-specific context.

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 implies usage for bonus withholding calculations but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as compute_take_home or get_state_rates. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so usage context is only implicit from the tool name and wording.

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