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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no contradiction exists. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core meaning; the formula and default assumptions are not stated but are partially covered by the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 with no redundancy or wasted words. It conveys the purpose efficiently.

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 simple, read-only, idempotent calculation with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the minimal description is adequate. It could include the formula, but the schema and annotations already cover the essential operational details.

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%: all parameters have clear descriptions, including defaults for hoursPerWeek and weeksPerYear. The description adds no additional parameter-level nuance, so the 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 specifies the exact resource and action: computing the hourly rate implied by an annual salary. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tool hourly-to-salary, which performs the inverse conversion.

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?

Usage context is implied: this tool is used when you have an annual salary and want the equivalent hourly rate. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention that hourly-to-salary is the inverse operation.

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