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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond them — for a calculation tool it never says whether results are estimates, what tax year or assumptions apply, or how precise the output is, which is the context that actually matters here.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the core purpose front-loaded before the usage cue. Nothing to trim and nothing displaced.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what comes back (net amount only vs. a breakdown of deductions, currency of the result). It covers inputs adequately via the schema but leaves the return shape unspecified for an agent that must report the result to a user.

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%, including the useful note on the optional company parameter referencing list_companies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (calculate take-home pay) plus the scoping inputs (salary, country). It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling deel_calculate_employment_cost, so an agent comparing the two gets no disambiguation.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: net pay, take-home salary, or deductions questions in a country. There is no guidance on when NOT to use it or how it differs from other Deel calculation tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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