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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the components calculated (federal/state taxes, Social Security, Medicare, state payroll programs) and output frequencies, but it does not disclose assumptions like the use of standard deductions, whether pre-tax deductions are ignored, or that results are estimates. This is a meaningful gap for a calculation tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full 2026 paycheck breakdown') and lists outputs efficiently. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description does a good job enumerating the net pay frequencies and tax components. However, it is slightly unclear what 'state payroll programs' refers to, and it does not explicitly mention that the filingStatus parameter affects state tax calculations, though that is implied by the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('compute') and resource ('take-home pay'), and explicitly lists the components and output frequencies. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_states (which compares states) and get_state_rates (which only provides rates) by focusing on a single state's full paycheck breakdown.

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 'in one state' clearly implies this tool is for calculating take-home pay for a single state, differentiating it from comparing states. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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