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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool is paid ($0.05), returns a verdict, margin, statutory floor, and legal instrument, and handles edge cases like missing floors or period mismatches honestly. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the tool's purpose and cost ('PAID ($0.05). Compliance verdict...'). Every sentence adds value, and no unnecessary words appear.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (verdict, margin, floor, legal instrument) and addresses edge cases. With 4 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description covers all necessary behavioral and constraint details for effective use.

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%, but the description adds significant value beyond schema: it clarifies that amount is in the country's currency (schema says same), period must match statutory floor's period (schema only says 'Period the amount covers'), and api_key bypasses x402 with metered invoicing (schema merely says 'API key'). This enhances agent understanding.

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?

Description clearly states it checks if a salary meets the statutory minimum wage, using a specific verb ('compliance verdict') and resource ('statutory minimum wage'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like compute_income_tax or compute_vat, which deal with tax calculations.

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 guidance on when to pass an api_key (if available) and explains that cross-period conversion is never guessed. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the tool's purpose is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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