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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals only the insurance categories and the 'standard monthly income' basis, but does not state whether results are monthly or annual, employee-only or total, or how age, prefecture, and industry affect the calculation.

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 sentence with no filler and starts with the core purpose. It is concise, though the brevity leaves out usage and behavior details, which is more a completeness concern than a conciseness flaw.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how inputs influence results. It only lists insurance types, leaving rate complexity, output format, and calculation assumptions unexplained.

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?

The input schema already describes all four parameters with descriptions and enums, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond framing monthlySalary as 'standard monthly income,' which the schema already conveys as 'monthly salary in JPY.'

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 identifies the resource and scope: health, pension, and employment insurance computed from standard monthly income. It is clear enough in context of the title, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling calculators like nhi-calc or take-home-pay-calc.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related insurance/tax calculators. No prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent receives no decision support beyond the bare purpose.

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