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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the paid nature, the detailed output format (line-by-line with citations and refused list), and the explicit exclusion of income tax. It does not mention any side effects or data retention, but as a pure computation tool this is sufficient. It also notes the 'unknown, not zero' handling, which is a valuable behavioral detail.

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 three sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the cost, then the purpose, then the exclusions and payment options. Every sentence contributes essential information, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, output structure, exclusions, and payment. It doesn't list all parameters, but the schema does. It also doesn't mention that only 'ae' is supported, but that is visible in the schema. Overall, the description provides sufficient context for correct usage without overloading.

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 description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It adds context about the gross salary and country implicitly but does not provide additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: pricing statutory contributions on both employee and employer sides for a gross salary, returning line-by-line amounts with citations and a refused list. It explicitly distinguishes itself from income tax computation via compute_payroll, making its scope unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance and names the alternative tool (compute_payroll) for income tax scenarios. It also explains the payment requirement via api_key or x402, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke the tool under different circumstances.

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