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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context on top: the state rate in force on the given date, application of the federal floor, pre-tax basis, and exclusion of overtime and tips. It stops short of stating rounding behavior or what happens for states without their own minimum wage.

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, front-loaded with the outputs and the inputs, then caveats. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess; nothing is padded.

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 simple four-parameter read-only calculator with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential semantic contract (units, pre-tax basis, federal floor, exclusions) and names the three returned figures. Only edge-case behavior (invalid state, date outside the window) is left unaddressed, which is minor.

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 (including the YYYY-MM-DD date range and the 2-letter-code/name state format) are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the 40/52 defaults already present in the schema and adds only the notion that the state rate is date-dependent, so the 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?

The description names a specific computation and its outputs: gross weekly, monthly and annual pay derived from a state's minimum wage, which cleanly separates it from get_minimum_wage (rate lookup) and compare_states (multi-state comparison). It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 output description (use this when you need dollar amounts rather than the raw rate), and the 2026-2027 window plus pre-tax/overtime/tips exclusions scope it usefully. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of get_minimum_wage when...' routing statement, leaving the agent to infer the choice among the three siblings.

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