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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: it runs real tax brackets before and after the raise to handle bracket crossings. However, it does not mention what taxes are included (e.g., federal vs. state), what the output contains, or any limitations, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a valuable methodological detail that helps agents understand why this tool is not a simple marginal-rate calculation.

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?

The schema covers all parameters and the description explains the core method, but there is no output schema and no annotation to clarify return values, tax scope, or edge cases like how state tax is handled. For a 6-parameter financial calculator, this leaves some ambiguity about what the agent will receive after invocation.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds context about the calculation method but does not add meaning to any specific parameter beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: calculating what a raise is actually worth after tax. It also differentiates the tool's method by emphasizing real brackets before and after and explicitly contrasting with a flat marginal rate, making it distinct from sibling tax 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 the tool is for after-tax raise calculations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like calculate_income_tax or calculate_payroll_tax. There are no exclusions or conditions given, so usage context is only implied.

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