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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about coverage ('All 50 states') and data recency ('Latest CDN data'), but it does not disclose calculation assumptions such as FICA caps, how retirementContribution affects taxable income, or the output format.

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 concise sentences with the core action and deduction categories front-loaded. The coverage and data-freshness statement is brief and relevant, with no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 4-parameter calculator with no output schema or annotations, the description gives a clear summary and the schema fills in parameter details. Still missing are the exact return shape, treatment of retirementContribution as pre-tax, and behavior when state is omitted, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 all four parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the schema: state, grossSalary, filingStatus, and retirementContribution. The tool description adds no deeper parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('calculate') and resource ('paycheck deductions') and enumerates the deduction types: federal tax, Social Security, Medicare, and state tax. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as calculate_freelancer_tax or calculate_capital_gains_tax.

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 phrase 'paycheck deductions' provides clear W-2 payroll context, and 'All 50 states' signals the intended geographic scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as for self-employment or 1099 income.

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