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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses that rates are 2026 and that both employee and employer sides are covered, but it omits important behavioral details like rounding, contribution caps, or whether the result is a total or an itemized breakdown.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately identifies the domain, scope, and rate year.

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 three-parameter calculator with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin. It does not describe the return shape or whether the result includes a per-insurance breakdown, which matters because there is no output 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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds only 'monthly wage' context and does not elaborate on how nonTaxable or employerSize affect the calculation beyond what the schema states.

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 clearly states the resource (South Korea's four major social insurances) and what is computed for a monthly wage: employee deductions and employer contributions at 2026 rates. It is distinguishable from siblings like net_pay or severance_pay, though it does not explicitly say 'calculate' and could be sharper about the output being a breakdown.

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 is implied by the payroll-calculation context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus siblings such as net_pay or retirement_income_tax. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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