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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description need not repeat those properties. The description adds useful behavioral context: the calculation follows the national employee pension formula and can automatically retrieve a recorded 计发基数 from the local dataset when province/city is supplied, otherwise requiring explicit input.

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 dense sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and then explains the calculation structure and input options. It is efficient, but it repeats several input names already documented in the schema, making it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. Given eight parameters and a complex pension formula, the description provides adequate context about methodology and input modes; the remaining details, such as required fields and defaults, are covered by the schema.

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 eight parameters in detail. The description adds conceptual meaning by framing the inputs around the two pension components and by clarifying the automatic lookup versus direct-entry pathways, though it does not add much parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb (测算) and resource (企业职工基本养老金月领金额), and explicitly identifies the two calculation components: 基础养老金 and 个人账户养老金. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tax, salary, and social-security-limit tools without needing to name them.

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 that the tool is for estimating monthly pension benefits and explains two input modes: automatic lookup via province/city, or direct entry of pensionBase and related factors. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of the sibling calculations, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites for either input mode.

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