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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a pure calculation tool by naming the computed outputs and calling the breakeven 'mathematical.' It does not detail all assumptions or the return format, but the deterministic, read-only nature is reasonably transparent.

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 front-loaded sentence that begins with the primary action and enumerates all calculation components without filler. Every phrase contributes distinct information, and the structure makes the multi-part computation 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?

All five parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description names the key calculation areas and the governing IRS ruling, so an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is a minor gap since the description does not explicitly state the result format, but the computed concepts are listed.

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 every parameter already includes a name, default, and unit in the input schema. The description adds domain context like 'salary split' and 'overhead netting,' which helps an agent connect parameters to the calculation, but it does not provide any additional 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 opens with the specific verb 'Calculate' and names the exact resource: an S-Corporation reasonable salary analysis. It enumerates the distinct outputs — salary split, FICA tax shield, overhead netting, and breakeven threshold — and anchors them to IRS Rev. Rul. 74-44, making the tool clearly distinguishable from the other financial calculators.

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 S-Corp owners evaluating reasonable compensation and entity-level tax/overhead tradeoffs, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references are provided, so the agent must infer selection from the domain language alone.

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